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

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.

Topgear on Dave

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?

Topgear on Dave

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.

Claw Hammer

Fol20 wrote: »

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

If you don't do the work, the tenant can make a complaint of wrongful eviction and you will be ordered to pay damages.

Redo22

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If you don't do the work, the tenant can make a complaint of wrongful eviction and you will be ordered to pay damages.

Oh god so I have to pay tens of thousands to renovate when I’ll never get it back? Could I not just change my mind and sell it?

Samuel T. Cogley

Old diesel wrote: »

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

That's currently happening. Markets not too bad if you want to buy, but renting is fecked. Not everyone can or should buy. There has to be a balance.

Old diesel

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

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!

The poster implies he will sell it......

He could choose to keep it empty - and presumably if significant amounts of people choose to do that then Govt will have to consider incentives to sell or rent out.

Hopefully we wont need to CPO

DubCount

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That's currently happening. Markets not too bad if you want to buy, but renting is fecked. Not everyone can or should buy. There has to be a balance.

Correct. Central Bank mortgage rules are keeping a lid on home purchase demand, and exiting landlords are adding to the supply side. The lack of housing supply is building up in the rental sector where more tenents are coming into the market, and institutional investors are not keeping pace with small landlords getting out.

If you dont have the income/deposit for a mortgage, you're in a scrap with all those like you who are fighting to get a rental from a contracting supply. This type of measure helps the first time buyer market, but it only makes life harder for tenants that cant afford home ownership. Any legislation that fails to deliver extra housing supply, is not helping tenants - its hurting them (though thats not the spin they are hearing).

CoffeeBean2

Old diesel wrote: »

then Govt will have to consider incentives to sell or rent out.

Incentives for LLs? Don't count on it, it's all stick.

Remember the last budget? The gov increased mortgage interest relief (or something like that) and the media went mad saying the gov should be bullding houses and not giving a penny to LLs!

The gov will just get bad media, protests, and lose votes, if they ever give a LL anything other than the stick.

Fol20

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If you don't do the work, the tenant can make a complaint of wrongful eviction and you will be ordered to pay damages.

What are the nee regulations for renovation exactly? Has legislation being brought in or just being discussed?

If they have passed or will pass before you work is complete - tell tenant via registered post, email and text that due to recent legislation changes, i will not be completing said jobs and cancel termination. Your then giving tenant choice to stay as you have no benefit out of it

If it hasnt passed yet by the time works are completed. Ensure you have all your tradesmen in gear to complete asap.

Fol20

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

Incentives for LLs? Don't count on it, it's all stick.

Remember the last budget? The gov increased mortgage interest relief (or something like that) and the media went mad saying the gov should be bullding houses and not giving a penny to LLs!

The gov will just get bad media, protests, and lose votes, if they ever give a LL anything other than the stick.

They really shot themself in the foot with this. They had already started to roll back this by 5pc per year and were over the initial media hump for giving ll something a year or two beforehand. They should have just let this tip away under the radar without it bringing this back to the media attention.

I was hoping they would allow lpt as an expense among a few other things.

Instead tenants are angered because ll are getting something(they were going to get it anyway at a slower pace)

The government are down more money as this will dent their tax intake a good bit for the next few years.

The ll also feel like they got nothing as this was already coming all be it at a slower pace.

The government have acknowledged that if give too much stick, it will force more ll out however their actions speak louder than their words.
Your dead right. Anything for ll may loose them votes however by not doing it, your hurting the people of nation.

tvjunki

Well this is coming down the line as well as long notice periods. Increase in notice from 30 days to 120 etc.
Any T D that comes to my front door will be run from it. Why should the small time landlord suffer? No one complained when landlords were getting little or nothing in rent in the recession.
If you have to sell with a sitting tenant your house will be devalued as only those in the landlord business will buy it or cash buyers. Not a good position if you bought at the height of the market and held out.

Claw Hammer

Redo22 wrote: »

Oh god so I have to pay tens of thousands to renovate when I’ll never get it back? Could I not just change my mind and sell it?

You are caught in a trap. You may have to invite the tenant back first! As it stands, if the work is not done the tenant can complain and recover damages.