Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2018

GGTrek

It is happening this week:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/dail-schedule/?selecteddate=2019-01-22


There are three long debate sessions scheduled for Tue, Wed and Thu. I am sure that there will be proposals for amendments that can only worsen what is already another bad bill (it is another screw the landlord bill).



This bill will become law very soon (in my opinion before the end of February) since it is government sponsored and will not go through committees.


The main points of this bill were discussed in this thread in December (presented on the 19th of December, the usual Christmas present from the govvie!)
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057876284&page=7

wowy

Thanks for the reminder. I've just emailed my TDs Shane Ross & Josepha Madigan (I see no point contacting Catherine Martin) with my concerns. You'd think it'd be good to have 2 Ministers as TDs, but Josepha Madigan or her staff have never even acknowledged any of my previous correspondence, and Shane Ross replied to my October 2016 email re. one of the imminent budget measures in July 2017, so I don't really anticipate any helpful action from either.

GGTrek

Debate today was very short (apart from BS from SF), the bill main points were presented by the minister:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-01-22/33/

I just copied below and put in bold the summary of the bill and the very serious risks of even worst amendments (as I said in my original post).

************************************************
Part 1, preliminary and general, contains standard provisions dealing with the Title, collective citation and commencement of the Bill. It also provides for definitions and interpretation of terms used in the Bill and in the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2016.

Part 2 amends the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and provides for a number of key changes to the regulatory framework. Section 3 amends section 19 of the Act of 2004 to provide a definition for substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy in respect of which an exemption applies from the rent increase limit of 4% per annum in RPZs and to require a landlord to notify the RTB, and to provide supporting information, where an exemption to the application of the rent increase limit is claimed. In addition, section 3, if enacted, will create three new offences namely non-compliance with the rent increase limit provisions, knowingly or recklessly furnishing information to the RTB which is false or misleading in a material respect in a bid to claim an exemption from the rent limit and non-compliance with the new requirement to notify the RTB of an exemption claim.

Sections 5, 6 and 7 provide for technical amendments to ensure that various notice periods afforded under the Residential Tenancies Act, such as termination notices and rent review notices, are correctly applied.

The amendment to section 66 of the 2004 Act under section 7 extends the notice period that a landlord provides in the context of an impending tenancy termination. This applies to tenants who have occupied a dwelling for more than six months and less than five years. For those tenants occupying a tenancy for six months or more but less than one year, the notice period currently at 35 days will increase to 90 days. For those with tenancy of one year or more but less than two years, the notice period will increase from 42 days to 120 days. For those with tenancy of two years or more but less than three years, the notice period will increase from 56 days to 120 days. For those with tenancy of three years or more but less than four years, the notice period will increase from 84 days to 120 days. For those with tenancy of four years or more but less than five years of a tenancy, the notice period will increase from 112 days to 120 days. The provision aims to assist tenants by giving them extra time to accommodate themselves where a landlord needs to terminate a tenancy.

Where a tenancy termination notice is determined to be invalid due to a defect in the notice or an error occurring during the service of the notice by the landlord, the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, will be empowered to permit the landlord to remedy such a defect by issuing a remedial notice to the tenant. The notice will provide at least a further 28 days on top of the original termination notice period. Significantly, the Bill provides for review of these new tenancy termination provisions during the third year of their operation. I will speak later on to some further intended amendments to the existing tenancy termination provisions.

Sections 9 and 10 empower the RTB to charge a fee for its mediation services if it is deemed necessary in the future. Section 11 technically amends section 123 of the Act of 2004 to make it mandatory for the board to publish its determination orders and notices of cancellation thereof. Currently, the board has the option whether to so publish. The amendment aims to enhance transparency in this area.

A significant change to current practice will be made through section 12. Tenancies will be required to be registered annually with the RTB. The aim is to more regularly gather accurate and detailed tenancy and rent data to inform rental market policy development and implementation. Currently, a tenancy might not be required to be re-registered until the expiry of a six-year period. This could occur where a tenant continues to reside in the same dwelling during that period. Section 14 introduces a technical amendment to provide a legal requirement that the address at which the landlord ordinarily resides and the address of the landlord's authorised agent are both supplied on the registration of a tenancy. This provision is in the interests of transparency and the efficient operation of protections under the tenancy law. As such, landlords will be obliged to supply their own address and not only that of their agent.

Sections 15 and 16 provide for the RTB to charge fees for annual registrations of tenancies. These will include a €40 fee per tenancy registration by private providers and a €20 per tenancy registration by an approved housing body. Fees will be increased by 50% for late tenancy registrations in line with the move to annual registration of tenancies. A registration fee can only be charged in respect of the same dwelling once a year. A discounted single registration fee can be applied where the same landlord registers not more than ten tenancies of dwellings comprised in the same property. This could apply, for example, with up to ten apartments in the same block. The key change from the existing registration fees is that AHBs will be charged fees that are half those applicable to private providers. Currently, all landlords pay the same registration fee, which is €90 per tenancy. The reduction in AHB fees is proposed in recognition of the public service they provide in meeting the housing needs of those in receipt of social housing supports, their charitable or similar status as well as the low incidence of such bodies requiring the services of the RTB, such as dispute resolution services.

Section 17 empowers the RTB to pursue updates to its register from landlords with regard to rent alterations relating to tenancies in their dwellings. A new criminal offence is created with regard to non-compliance with the requirements to update rent information on the RTB register. Perhaps the most significant achievement of this Bill, if enacted, will be the introduction of a sanctioning regime to provide for the carrying out of investigations of landlords by RTB-authorised officers and the imposition of administrative sanctions by RTB-appointed decision-makers. Under the new Part 7A, the RTB will be empowered to cause, of its own volition or on foot of a complaint, an investigation to occur in respect of possible improper conduct on the part of a landlord with regard to complying with the requirements of the rent increase limit of 4% per annum in rent pressure zones. The measure will include the new requirement to notify the RTB of a rent limit exemption claim as well as the requirements to register a tenancy and keep the rent details related to the tenancy updated with the RTB.

Section 18 provides for several measures. An administrative sanctioning regime for the RTB is provided for. Provision is made for the appointment by the RTB of authorised officers and decision-makers as well as provision for their powers and functions, including powers of investigation, inspection and sanction for the RTB. The section confers power on the RTB to initiate an investigation without a complaint being made by the public. Subject to certain conditions, the RTB will be required to cause an investigation to be carried out upon receipt of a complaint of improper conduct by a landlord under the Act. Oral hearings regarding matters under investigation may take place. Sanctions may be imposed that take into account the nature of the improper conduct in question and may comprise one or all of the following: a financial penalty of up to €15,000, payment of RTB investigation costs of up to €15,000, and a written caution. The section provides for a right of appeal to the Circuit Court in respect of a sanction. If no appeal occurs, the section requires the Circuit Court to confirm all sanctions. The section also provides for other ancillary matters relating to procedures to be adopted by the RTB.

Part 3 provides for the repeal of certain provisions contained in the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 that have not come into operation and have been overtaken by the provisions in this Bill.

I will need to introduce Government amendments, including technical amendments to the Bill and to the Act of 2004, as the Bill makes its way through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I was keen to publish the Bill as soon as possible to let everyone in the sector know that the Government is serious in its intent to stamp out any improper conduct by landlords, particularly with regard to flouting the rent increase restrictions. I hope to introduce an amendment to allow the RTB to publish rental amounts in its register. This proposal is receiving due diligence by the Office of the Attorney General. Enhanced rent transparency is our goal, and it is an important one. Specific amendments to better tailor the Act of 2004 to the operation of AHBs are under consideration, including a possible provision in the context of impending cost rental accommodation provision by AHBs.

Other significant proposed amendments to the Bill are being worked on by my officials as well as by officials in the Department of Education and Skills and the Office of the Attorney General. The aim is possibly to extend the application of certain provisions of the Residential Tenancies Acts, especially those connected to rent setting for purpose-built student-specific accommodation let under licence by private providers or let under licence or tenancy by public providers. To be clear, purpose-built student-specific accommodation let under tenancy by private providers is fully under the remit of the Residential Tenancies Acts. Any student who has signed a licence agreement with a private provider who wishes to raise a complaint or dispute with the RTB can do so. If the RTB finds that the purported licence agreement is in fact a tenancy, it can go on to resolve the underlying dispute.

As mentioned, I intend to examine the need to introduce further amendments to the existing tenancy termination provisions. My intention is for the existing grounds for tenancy termination by a landlord to be carefully examined by the Department and the Office of the Attorney General with a view to bringing forward any necessary amendments to tighten and enhance legally the operation of relevant provisions and to empower greater enforcement of the provisions by the RTB.

Another area that needs urgent attention by my Department and the Office of the Attorney General is the operation of rent pressure zones in the short to medium term. I imagine Deputies are aware that my three-year designation of the Dublin local authority areas and that of Cork City will expire in December 2019 as rent pressure zones. Active consideration is being given to what amendments might need to be included in this Bill to ensure that, come 2020, tenants will not be hit with astronomical rent hikes. The opportunity is being taken to examine what other changes are needed to the operation of the rent pressure zones and related exemptions. We will need to introduce amendments, but for now I simply wish to flag to the House and to the sector that these changes will be coming. Technical amendments in this area are being examined to ensure that the measures are fair in their application throughout the country and the sector and that tenants have reasonable rent certainty for the future.

In addition to the changes being ushered in by this Bill, the RTB is actively pursuing a range of modernisation initiatives. Government commitments in the Action Plan for Housing and Homelessness were made in September 2017 to provide the Residential Tenancies Board with additional powers and resources to deliver enhanced protections to tenants and landlords. Arising from these commitments, a change management project board has been established to implement and develop the Residential Tenancies Board multi-annual change management plan to progress a number of the proposals announced in September 2017. Demand for RTB services has increased significantly due to the increasing size of the rental sector and because of the changing regulatory structure. In 2017, the RTB received 5,823 new applications for dispute resolution services. This was the highest number of applications the RTB has received in a given year. Almost half of all cases are processed and closed within four to eight weeks. The dispute resolution service offers resolution via mediation or adjudication as well as an appeal process by tribunal.

The proposed new powers for the RTB are a crucial first step in expanding its overall role and function as part of a multi-annual change management programme to enforce tenancy law proactively within the rental sector. Additional powers and functions will be rolled out to the RTB as soon as possible but in an orderly manner. The change management plan will identify priorities and timeframes for their delivery, incorporating milestones along the delivery path. It is recognised that the RTB is not in a position to take on further additional work until the necessary funding and staffing can be provided. Thus, in budget 2019 the board was provided with a 67% increase in Exchequer funding to strengthen its powers and provide for greater local authority inspections in the sector.

mrslancaster

GGtrek, thanks for posting the link.

Funny to see that Minister Murphy says government has to be careful that the changes they make to tenancy law will not "inadvertently cause an unsustainable exit of landlords from the rental sector..."

Maybe he doesn't realise that horse has already bolted...:eek:

handlemaster

Annual registration of tenancies another milk the landlord iniative

overkill602

Am sure murphy knows the reits are selling off some units I heard from a reliable source not to mention the cranes in Dublin are just building office and student accommodation no investors for BTL because of more stupid anti LL rules all at a time when demand is increasing and supply is contracting

Maya22

Anyone know when this bill is likely to come in? Gave notice to a tenant to substantially refurbish months ago as they are almost at 60% below market rate now, so they are due to leave in April. Plan to do a significant refurbishment with knocking walls, redoing everything and improving BER. Now I’m terrified that the PRTB are going to prevent me from getting market rate after I do this, I’ll be taking a loan out for the refurbishment so was hoping the rent would pay it off. It’s in an excellent location in city centre with no mortgage so I’m reluctant to sell, but will this be my only option if I’m stuck at such a low rate?

dennyk

If you're literally knocking walls down (thus permanently changing the interior layout) and also improving the BER, it sounds like that'd meet at least two of the required conditions, so as long as your work is also affecting at least half the floor space of the property, I'd think it would be considered a substantial renovation for the purposes of setting rent. Just be sure to save all your plans, invoices, and other related paperwork to submit to the RTB when you submit your exemption notice to them.

GGTrek

This current bill has completed committee stage on the 11th of April:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/video-archive/committees/2499/

I actually listened to the whole discussion (not once something favourable about landlords was said and this is a totally screw the landlord initiative in the best tradition of the current Irish political jokers), as expected some of the amendments considerably worsen the situation and one of the amendment to this bill is what will practically outlaw short term lettings on residential properties.

I shall publish a short summary when I have some time.

This bill will now go to report stage and Murphy has clearly confirmed that he wants the bill to become law before August, which means that it will be approved before the summer recess, so mid-May-Mid July.

Fian

On a quick look the major change appears to be the new annual €85 fee.

Which in an RPZ in an existing tenancy cannot be passed on to the tenant, in whole or in part.

The legislation brings clarity to "substantial renovation", probably in a good way for any landlords not seeking to act unlawfully.

It introduces new more detailed procedures for determinations and investigations, which again are broadly welcome for decent landlords, except to the important extent that they need to be paid for out of the new annual €85 which is open to being increased.

I am very surprised they have not "fixed" section 19(5) to address new tenancies or new builds after the rent is first fixed. Particularly when the new 19(5B) requires landlords to explain why 19(4) does not apply in certain circumstances. however this will be addressed by the "renewal"/designation of the RPZs, giving a window for new builds each time but catching them if they are tenanted when the RPZ is renewed/extended/remade after 3 years. Which in the case of Dublin will occur next christmas eve or perhaps shortly before, when the Minister makes a new RPZ order.

Finally creates criminal offences for increasing rent beyond RPZ limits or for failing to supply tenants with information you are obliged to provide under the Act.

Again I have no issue with that. In fact if this legislation didn't have the new €85 annual charge I would have no issue with any of it.

GGTrek

I shall just list the amendments to the original bill that are very likely going to become law before the summer recess as approved by the committee on Housing.

The whole discussion of the original bill can be found here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057876284&page=7

- Short term letting is going to be defined as any letting below 14 days

- This bill will prohibit short term lettings on self-contained residential properties (there was some discussion to allow it for limited period in non-RPZ areas, but the outcome was not clear). So this is the bill that will "ban" "Airbnb" lettings. Murphy also said that at the same time the department of housing is instructing the local authorities in RPZ that no residential property can have a change of use approved to short term lettings (blanket ban, whatever the merits of the planning request, the Oireachtas jokers are in full control).

- Student accommodation will be incorporated under RPZ rules, but will be excluded from Part 4 rights (which means no right to 6 years tenancies in student accommodation)

- Student accommodation will be allowed to be used for short term lettings only if the owners planning permission for short lettings.

- Student accommodation will be subject to RTB registration starting on 1Q 2020 at a lower rate of 17 eur per registration (capped at 170 eur for more than 10 registrations performed at the same time) to be performed at least yearly

- late registration fees, the penalty will become much higher for private landlords: 10 eur per month of delay per yearly registration (so if someone does not register for four years a tenancy, the penalty will be a whopping 1200 eur + 160 due for the missing four yearly registrations! For Housing Bodies and Student Accommodation the penaly value will be reduced to 5 eur per month.

- Housing Bodies will pay a reduced annual fee of 20 eur, capped at 85 eur for multiple registrations and their penalty for late registrations will be capped at 240 eur

- the yearly registration fees were a request of the RTB (of course with the cost funded by landlords) in order to maintain accurate data about tenancies. There was a lot of discussion of not penalizing Housing Bodies with these yearly registration since they are "non-profit" organization (in reality their directors and employees make a lot of profit for themselves using public money) and the admin overhead would be detrimental to them. Of course the hypocrites at the Oireachtas did not think about the fact that this admin cost or re-registration would be detrimental to any landlord and in RPZ the additional admin cost cannot be recovered by increasing rent.

- BIG change: any notice of termination for (a) Sale (b) Substantial Refurbishment (c) Change of Use will have to be communicated by the landlord to the RTB (the timeframe of such communication was not discussed) and there were proposal (which could be considered at report stage) that such communication should also be sent to the local authority in order to give them "time" to help the tenants (whether necessary or not, as long as the admin cost of all this bureaucracy is on the landlord the jokers at the Oireachtas are fine!).

- Other very expensive bureaucracy: for eviction based on refurbishment an architect report has to be sent together with the termination notice stating that the works will make the dwelling unsafe for habitation

- RPZ extended to end of 2021 (rent controls are like a drug, once you get the vice, it never goes away! I bet that in 2021 another extension will be issued by the Oireachtas jokers) and the qualifying criterias change. Dublin area has been split from the rest of Ireland so that more RPZ areas can be created by taking Dublin out of their average (the usual: "we change the rules as we go along and see fit in our own morals wheter it is good or bad")

- new lettings in RPZ are going to be subjected to RPZ rules at the first rent review while currently this was not the case (that is why IRES REIT could perform rent reviews of more than 30% recently)

- finally some good news for privacy rights (not due to the Oireachtas jokers of course). The Attorney General gave advice to the govvie that individual rent amounts per rented dwelling cannot be published. So only the average rent amount per "local electoral district area" can be published.

Looking at the future, since the Oireachtas jokers are unstoppable in screwing the private rental market, next year the govvie will propose another bill with further more radical screw the landlords initiatives:
- indefinite duration of tenancies
- deposits limited to 1 month rent
- trying to setup the deposit protection scheme (problem is that it is too complicated and expensive for the small minds at the RTB and at the Department of Housing) even though the RTB clearly stated to the government (Murphy said it in public at the committee debate) that deposit retention are a very minor cause of disputes. Ideology always comes first whatever the facts for these jokers!

There were also the usual amendment proposals from the SF socialists and PBP commies (that were all rejected):
- Even though there were a lot of requests to define a receiver as landlord, this is not going to happen in this bill
- SF again trying to prohibit eviction for sale, apparently the Attorney general gave advice to the government that this would constitute an unjust attack on property rights (since the sale value could go down by 20-30%) therefore making it uncostitutional
- the communist Boyd Barrett in his hatred of landlords wanted to remove appeals to the Circuit Court of criminal sanctions requested by RTB "investigators" because it would take too long. Communists are always ready to forgo constitutional guarantees when it suits their political agenda.
- again the communist Boyd Barrett proposed an amendement that HAP tenants could not be evicted if not paying rent

Of course no mention whatsoever in the debate on how to improve the massive problem of rent arrears and overholding even though the minister explicitly said that this was the cause of the majority of the RTB disputes. They just don't give a .... about this fact, it does not fit the narrative!

garhjw

I hope Murphy comes knocking on my door canvassing at the next general election.....

More needless bureaucracy.

What improvement in service will landlords get from RTB in return for a 300%-400% increase in fees?

dennyk

GGTrek wrote: »

Of course no mention whatsoever in the debate on how to improve the massive problem of rent arrears and overholding even though the minister explicitly said that this was the cause of the majority of the RTB disputes.

That honestly sucks, and I say that as a tenant, not a landlord. Making it harder for landlords to arbitrarily terminate tenancies for spurious reasons is reasonable, but it ought to be paired with measures to make it faster, easier, and less burdensome to remove nonpaying tenants or tenants who have been served valid notice for a valid reason. Both sides in the transaction need to be held accountable to fulfill their end of things properly. I understand that (in addition to being politically unpopular) expedited evictions would exacerbate the issue of homelessness in the current crisis, but dumping the burden to house people who can't (or won't) pay solely on private landlords, many of who can't possibly afford it, is both unsustainable and unfair.

L1011

GGTrek wrote: »

There were also the usual amendment proposals from the SF socialists and PBP commies (that were all rejected):

(trimmed)

- the communist Boyd Barrett in his hatred of landlords wanted to remove appeals to the Circuit Court of criminal sanctions requested by RTB "investigators" because it would take too long. Communists are always ready to forgo constitutional guarantees when it suits their political agenda.
- again the communist Boyd Barrett proposed an amendement that HAP tenants could not be evicted if not paying rent

You have been repeatedly warned on thread, carded and indeed infracted for refusing to heed the warnings about "communist", "comrade" etc.

This is a final warning to stop.

GGTrek

The government is in a hurry, so the final discussion and approval of this bill will start next Wednesday 8th of May. It is possible that unless there are major surprises, the bill will become law before the end of May.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/dail-schedule/?selecteddate=2019-05-08

The text of the bill as amended (massively) in the comittee is the following one (the summaries in this thread and the thread about the original bill are mostly still valid):
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/140/eng/ver_a/b140a18d.pdf

Apart from being another massive screw the landlords regulation and another massive increase in bureaucracy, there is a big risk that appeared at the committee debate and was promised at report stage by SF (which is the one scheduled for next Wednesday):
- SF promised to present again at report stage an amendment to prohibit eviction for sale, even if the Attorney general gave advice to the government that this would constitute an unjust attack on property rights since the sale value could go down by 20-30% therefore making it uncostitutional, the whole left cannot care less about the fine legal details, they have a political agenda of de-facto expropriation of landlord properties and they will push it with any means possible.

It does not matter if the amendment is uncostitutional in the opinion of the Attorney General (if approved landlords will have to go through years of court process), when (it is not an if) SF presents such an amendment at report stage, it will have the support of the whole left and if FF chickens out in public by abstaining (like they have done with the anti-eviction bill) it will pass and become law since the left has 3-4 votes more than FG alone.

My suggestion to the landlords who are planning to sell is to prepare your statutory notices for sale and keep an eye on the the debate, if this amendment is approved, serve the termination notices as soon as possible before the new regulations are approved. I have already served termination notices to all my tenants a while ago and at the beginning of next month most of my properties will be sold or and the few remaining ones vacant ready to be sold and I shall be finally out of the landlord business: the money in my opinion is not worth anymore the hassle.

Finally if there is another attempt at censorship on political grounds (political ideology has a big influence on the attempted amendments to this bill) on this important thread about a massive change of regulations that is going to affect every tenants, landlord, student, holiday maker in Ireland, the censoring this time will be escalated to the boards.ie helpdesk to be removed: I am dead serious.

GGTrek

The government is in a hurry, so the final discussion and approval of this bill will start next Wednesday 8th of May. It is possible that unless there are major surprises, the bill will become law before the end of May.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/dail-schedule/?selecteddate=2019-05-08

The text of the bill as amended (massively) in the committee is the following one (the summaries in this thread and the thread about the original bill are mostly still valid):
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/140/eng/ver_a/b140a18d.pdf

Apart from being another massive screw the landlords regulation and another massive increase in bureaucracy, there is a big risk that appeared at the committee debate and was promised at report stage by SF (which is the one scheduled for next Wednesday):
- SF promised to present again at report stage an amendment to prohibit eviction for sale, even if the Attorney general gave advice to the government that this would constitute an unjust attack on property rights since the sale value could go down by 20-30% therefore making it uncostitutional, the whole left cannot care less about the fine legal details, they have a political agenda of de-facto expropriation of landlord properties and they will push it with any means possible.

It does not matter if the amendment is uncostitutional in the opinion of the Attorney General (if approved landlords will have to go through years of court process), when (it is not an if) SF presents such an amendment at report stage, it will have the support of the whole left and if FF chickens out in public by abstaining (like they have done with the anti-eviction bill) it will pass and become law since the left has 3-4 votes more than FG alone.

My suggestion to the landlords who are planning to sell is to prepare your statutory notices for sale and keep an eye on the debate, if this amendment is approved, serve the termination notices as soon as possible before the new regulations are approved. I have already served termination notices to all my tenants a while ago and at the beginning of next month most of my properties will be sold or and the few remaining ones vacant ready to be sold and I shall be finally out of the landlord business: the money in my opinion is not worth anymore the hassle.

Finally if there is another attempt at censorship on political grounds (political ideology has a big influence on the attempted amendments to this bill) on this important thread about a massive change of regulations that is going to affect every tenants, landlord, student, holiday maker in Ireland, the censoring this time will be escalated to the boards.ie helpdesk to be removed: I am dead serious.

Relax the cacks, nobody is censoring you. Using "commie" and "comrade" is just inflammatory, gets people all worked up and does nobody any favours. It hardly adds to the discussion when people are getting sidetracked by that kinda guff, it's the equivalent of somebody calling you a 'blueshirt' or 'nazi' because you hold opposing views. Take a chill pill, man.


And I agree with practically all you've said.

Fian

GGTrek wrote: »

The government is in a hurry, so the final discussion and approval of this bill will start next Wednesday 8th of May. It is possible that unless there are major surprises, the bill will become law before the end of May.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/dail-schedule/?selecteddate=2019-05-08

After the bill passes report stage in teh Dáil it still has to go through all three stages in the Seanad.

As regards stressing over the amendment set down prohibiting eviction for sale - these are only proposed amendments, lets wait until we see if they get majority support before getting too worried about them.

Threshold are unhappy. (But whats new)

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0508/1048117-tenancies-bill/

machalla

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Threshold are unhappy. (But whats new)

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0508/1048117-tenancies-bill/

It's interesting to see that government policy as stated in the article is to move towards indefinite tenancies.

Graces7

dennyk wrote: »

That honestly sucks, and I say that as a tenant, not a landlord. Making it harder for landlords to arbitrarily terminate tenancies for spurious reasons is reasonable, but it ought to be paired with measures to make it faster, easier, and less burdensome to remove nonpaying tenants or tenants who have been served valid notice for a valid reason. Both sides in the transaction need to be held accountable to fulfill their end of things properly. I understand that (in addition to being politically unpopular) expedited evictions would exacerbate the issue of homelessness in the current crisis, but dumping the burden to house people who can't (or won't) pay solely on private landlords, many of who can't possibly afford it, is both unsustainable and unfair.

also as a tenant, I share your feelings totally. We were taught at a very young age that whatever else we did without, paying rent or mortgage came first for security and for fairness

Graces7

machalla wrote: »

It's interesting to see that government policy as stated in the article is to move towards indefinite tenancies.

I did not know that after six years you could be evicted like that.

machalla

Graces7 wrote: »

I did not know that after six years you could be evicted like that.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/security-of-tenure/

"Further Part 4 tenancies

A ‘further Part 4 tenancy’ begins once the initial ‘Part 4 tenancy’ has finished. From the 24th December 2016, when a ‘further Part 4 tenancy’ commences, it lasts for 6 years for all tenancies

This also applies to tenants in Approved Housing Bodies."

Claw Hammer

Graces7 wrote: »

I did not know that after six years you could be evicted like that.

That is not an eviction.

Graces7

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is not an eviction.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0508/1048117-tenancies-bill/

dennyk

machalla wrote: »

It's interesting to see that government policy as stated in the article is to move towards indefinite tenancies.

Indefinite tenancies aren't necessarily a bad thing in general, but they aren't really compatible with a rental market where a large portion consists of small private landlords, because it would result in many of those properties leaving the market in the short term if the owners can't be (or simply don't want to be) locked into letting for an indefinite period of time. If there were more corporate-owned build-to-let multi-unit developments around here, such a policy would be much more workable, as long tenancies would generally be to everyone's advantage in that case.

Claw Hammer

Graces7 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0508/1048117-tenancies-bill/

The law doesn't allow landlords evict a tenant after 6 years. That is not correct.

twinklerunner

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The law doesn't allow landlords evict a tenant after 6 years. That is not correct.

It does ... when a Part 4 cycle is coming to an end.

Claw Hammer

twinklerunner wrote: »

It does ... when a Part 4 cycle is coming to an end.

It allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy, a different thing altogether.

Graces7

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy, a different thing altogether.

In real terms and actual effect, an eviction.

a/c Collins and other linguistic experts, " Eviction is the act or process of officially forcing someone to leave a house or piece of land."

Old diesel

dennyk wrote: »

machalla wrote: »

It's interesting to see that government policy as stated in the article is to move towards indefinite tenancies.

Indefinite tenancies aren't necessarily a bad thing in general, but they aren't really compatible with a rental market where a large portion consists of small private landlords, because it would result in many of those properties leaving the market in the short term if the owners can't be (or simply don't want to be) locked into letting for an indefinite period of time. If there were more corporate-owned build-to-let multi-unit developments around here, such a policy would be much more workable, as long tenancies would generally be to everyone's advantage in that case.

The solution to that small landlord issue imo is to provide an exit route that.....

1) allows the landlord to get full vacant procession market value.....

2) while simultaneously allowing the tenant to stay.

The wider issue is that no one at policy maker level has worked out how best the rental sector should operate in future.

So many issues that need addressing for longer term housing needs

Claw Hammer

Graces7 wrote: »

In real terms and actual effect, an eviction.

a/c Collins and other linguistic experts, " Eviction is the act or process of officially forcing someone to leave a house or piece of land."

When the Notice of Termination is served the tenant can vacate voluntarily or can challenge the notice. Eviction occurs when the Sheriff and his men appear to physically remove the tenant.

Claw Hammer

Old diesel wrote: »

The solution to that small landlord issue imo is to provide an exit route that.....

1) allows the landlord to get full vacant procession market value.....

2) while simultaneously allowing the tenant to stay.

The wider issue is that no one at policy maker level has worked out how best the rental sector should operate in future.

So many issues that need addressing for longer term housing needs

At policy level, what has been worked out is the best way to protect the existing banks. What is happening in the rental sector is simply consequential upon that.

Graces7

Claw Hammer wrote: »

When the Notice of Termination is served the tenant can vacate voluntarily or can challenge the notice. Eviction occurs when the Sheriff and his men appear to physically remove the tenant.

"Eviction is the act or process of officially forcing someone to leave a house or piece of land."

whether by a piece of paper or a posse.

Claw Hammer

Graces7 wrote: »

"Eviction is the act or process of officially forcing someone to leave a house or piece of land."

whether by a piece of paper or a posse.

The notice of termination doesn't force anyone to leave a house or land. Only a court order does.

The Student

Graces7 wrote: »

"Eviction is the act or process of officially forcing someone to leave a house or piece of land."

whether by a piece of paper or a posse.

Renting is a business transaction pure and simple. Why don't people get this into their head?

If you don't want to be evicted then either buy a property or move to somewhere you can afford.

Why do people find this concept so hard to understand.

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

"Eviction is the act or process of officially forcing someone to leave a house or piece of land."

whether by a piece of paper or a posse.

A termination of tenancy and an eviction have completely and utterly different meanings under legislation- and suggesting that they equate with one another- is trolling, plain and simple.

This debate is actually live on the telly now.

Great, very strong speeches by Dessie Ellis, Paul Murphy, RBB, and Tommy Broughan. Making some very good points.

These guys know exactly what needs to be done and they are determined to change everything when they finally get rid of FG and go into government. :pac:

DubCount

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

This debate is actually live on the telly now.

Great, very strong speeches by Dessie Ellis, Paul Murphy, RBB, and Tommy Broughan. Making some very good points.

These guys know exactly what needs to be done and they are determined to change everything when they finally get rid of FG and go into government. :pac:

:D:D

garhjw

SF send a convicted terrorist? What happened to the other clown with the glasses eoin O’Brien?

garhjw

garhjw wrote: »

SF send a convicted terrorist? What happened to the other clown with the glasses eoin O’Brien?

Iv no idea where posh boy has gone. But I think Dessie (94,535 euros per annum + expenses :pac:) lives in a council house himself so knows how hard the rental market can be on people and understands the struggles of the working classes.

machalla

I'm sure SF know plenty about construction, don't they have years of experience in the demolition trade for a start?

overkill602

How could they know even if they want to there objective is to follow an opposition party line

Having and living in a council house is not the same as private rented or paying a mortgage.

Continued discussions effects private LLs in the guise of affordability and security of tenure without any verified facts or equal representation it has no political risk, plays to an audience that doesn’t bring supply is a smoke screen.


As we all know you have the balaclavas close by last dawned in Strokestown the no solutions 32 county party.

Redo22

This is due to be brought in in a fortnight. They have changed again the definition of substantial change to the nature of the property and it is much more restrictive. My tenants are due to move out and I have a builder lined up to totally renovate the property including knocking walls but it seems it’s not enough anymore. Locked in at 50% below market rate.

Does anyone know if I had started building already would I have an exception? How will they police this? Can’t decide whether to just cancel the renovations and just sell up or chance it. Why would anyone bother renovating at all with these rules?

Fian

Redo22 wrote: »

This is due to be brought in in a fortnight. They have changed again the definition of substantial change to the nature of the property and it is much more restrictive. My tenants are due to move out and I have a builder lined up to totally renovate the property including knocking walls but it seems it’s not enough anymore. Locked in at 50% below market rate.

Does anyone know if I had started building already would I have an exception? How will they police this? Can’t decide whether to just cancel the renovations and just sell up or chance it. Why would anyone bother renovating at all with these rules?

have you already served notice of termination? New rules/requirements in respect of a notice of termination will not retrospectively apply to one already served.

Old diesel

Fian wrote: »

Redo22 wrote: »

This is due to be brought in in a fortnight. They have changed again the definition of substantial change to the nature of the property and it is much more restrictive. My tenants are due to move out and I have a builder lined up to totally renovate the property including knocking walls but it seems it’s not enough anymore. Locked in at 50% below market rate.

Does anyone know if I had started building already would I have an exception? How will they police this? Can’t decide whether to just cancel the renovations and just sell up or chance it. Why would anyone bother renovating at all with these rules?

have you already served notice of termination? New rules/requirements in respect of a notice of termination will not retrospectively apply to one already served.

I think his/her concern is more the rent after the work done - the next letting AFTER renovations will be under the more restrictive rules.

Edit so what Redo22 is saying is that major renovation will no longer let you off the hook for RPZ on first letting post renovation.

The issue that officials/TDs probably have is that people are doing renovations simply to bypass RPZ.

Landlords trying to work around rules seems to be attracting new rules to counter this

Redo22

Old diesel wrote: »

I think his/her concern is more the rent after the work done - the next letting AFTER renovations will be under the more restrictive rules.

Yes the termination was all above board but I don’t know whether I should spend the money on renovations if I can’t even increase the rent to market rate. I’ll have to sell up otherwise. My builder would go in and start a few small things now if it meant that I’d have an exception to the new rules

rightmove

So another decent LL will leave the market and more tenants will have issues.....gotta love this government . And it's all purposeful policy...It's laughable really

Old diesel

rightmove wrote: »

So another decent LL will leave the market and more tenants will have issues.....gotta love this government . And it's all purposeful policy...It's laughable really

Alternative view - someone currently renting at silly money could have the same house on a mortgage at less per month.

Edit I don't mean the current tenants but someone currently renting somewhere might be in the market

CoffeeBean2

Old diesel wrote: »

Alternative view - someone currently renting at silly money could have the same house on a mortgage at less per month.

Alternative view - that LL keeps the property, but leaves it empty, as an investment, so as to keep pace with property value, but not have the trouble of tenants!

But if that happens, maybe the government should take the property off the LL as it is unused and good decent people need it!

Where do you draw the line? What about all the people out their with saving sitting in the bank not getting used. Maybe the government should take that and give it to people that could use it more. What about unused bedrooms in private houses?

After all people couldddo with those savings and also unused beds!

Private individuals should not be held accountable for the governments failings, just like the Irish people should not have been held accountable for the banks failings. It happens before, it could happen again!

Fol20

Redo22 wrote: »

Yes the termination was all above board but I don’t know whether I should spend the money on renovations if I can’t even increase the rent to market rate. I’ll have to sell up otherwise. My builder would go in and start a few small things now if it meant that I’d have an exception to the new rules

Dont spend your money if you cant get increase. No point sure.