Paul Murphy on radio

seasidedub

Paul Murphy was on Newstalk today with Pat Kenny. He wants it to be illegal to give tenants notice to leave if property is to be sold - i.e. you can only sell with a tenant in situ. He claims this is the norm all over Europe. I've lived in Germany, Finland and Slovenia as a tenant and this is simply not true.

He also wants it to be either illegal or for landlords to have to pay large amounts of compensation if tenants are given notice for you or family to move in, or renovation work. So, all of you who have children who moved abroad in the recession and rented out their negative equity houses - what if they get jobs and move back? Are they to be homeless?

Or if you get transferred abroad for a year or so and rent out the house? He wants it to be illegal for you to get it back.

This barking mad leftie nonsense has to stop. Private landlords are not responsible for the housing crisis. A landlord provides a service. Accommodation. Not homes, just accommodation which you can call home as long as you pay and behave. If the landlord needs it back, it is his/hers to do so. People in long term housing need require public housing and it's not landlords faults the state won't build.

Ush1

He's a twat and clearly a poverty pimp.

garhjw

Beggars belief that his type which represent such a small % of the population get so much airtime and publicity. Sad state of affairs in society when people like him get elected.

padd b1975

That loon's sole aim is to destroy the private rental sector and create ghettos of social housing.
It's much easier then to manipulate the proletariat when they're concentrated in one area.

spurshero

Idiot of the highest order who loves his own voice

Pete_Cavan

If a tenant has a lease, surely they should be entitled to some compensation if their landlord breaks the lease. I am not familiar with the law in this regard but being required to pay compensation if you breach a contract is fairly standard. We need to have proper leases and protect the integrity of them for the benefit of both tenant and landlord.

I do not support Paul Murphy or agree with what he says but he seems to have at least a bit of a point (allow he has probably gone way too far that he is closer to no point than the initial point he had).

Squatter

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If a tenant has a lease, surely they should be entitled to some compensation if their landlord breaks the lease. I am not familiar with the law in this regard but being required to pay compensation if you breach a contract is fairly standard. We need to have proper leases and protect the integrity of them for the benefit of both tenant and landlord.

Wouldn't that depend on the wording of the lease? If a lease states that it can be terminated by either party in specified circumstances then why should the other party be entitled to compo if such a circumstance arises?

johnnyskeleton

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If a tenant has a lease, surely they should be entitled to some compensation if their landlord breaks the lease. I am not familiar with the law in this regard but being required to pay compensation if you breach a contract is fairly standard. We need to have proper leases and protect the integrity of them for the benefit of both tenant and landlord.

They are entitled to compensation for illegal breach of a lease. But it rarely comes to that. If a tenant feels that the landlord has breached the lease they can apply to the RTB and have an adjudication. Typically they stay in the property while waiting so if the tenant is right they stay on and if theyre wrong its the landlord who is inconvenienced.

So we already have a pretty good system of tenant protection which, some mght say, discourages people from becoming landlords.

Time

seasidedub wrote: »

Or if you get transferred abroad for a year or so and rent out the house? He wants it to be illegal for you to get it back.

To be fair he didn't say that, he said that at the end of a lease period you'd be able to take back the property. Whilst i don't think I've ever agreed with PM in my life, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The Student

In fairness the lease is not worth the paper its written on as once 6 months has elapsed a tenant is automatically entitled to a six year lease and this at present can only be terminated for one of the three reasons.

Claw Hammer

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If a tenant has a lease, surely they should be entitled to some compensation if their landlord breaks the lease. I am not familiar with the law in this regard but being required to pay compensation if you breach a contract is fairly standard. We need to have proper leases and protect the integrity of them for the benefit of both tenant and landlord.

I do not support Paul Murphy or agree with what he says but he seems to have at least a bit of a point (allow he has probably gone way too far that he is closer to no point than the initial point he had).

It is already the case that a tenancy cannot be terminated during a fixed term. People should educate themselves as to the law before posting drivel.

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is already the case that a tenancy cannot be terminated during a fixed term.

Unless there's a break clause, something that is increasingly common in modern residential lease agreements.

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

Unless there's a break clause, something that is increasingly common in modern residential lease agreements.

Then it is not a fixed term.

Pussyhands

When can we seriously expect these lefty loonies who were voted in in 2011, be voted out again? PLEEEEASE get rid of them.

beauf

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If a tenant has a lease, surely they should be entitled to some compensation if their landlord breaks the lease. ...

Fine but make it the same compensation if the tenant breaks the lease. The value of the deposit. No chance of getting anything else from a tenant. But we are now seeing fines for tens of thousands against landlords.

If you want to drive all stock from the rental market we are going the right way about it.

BarryD2

Certainly not a fan of Murphy but there does need to be some balance in the relationship between tenants and landlords. Stability of rent and security of tenure are important issues. IMHO these are more likely to be achieved where larger institutional investors are the landlords, entities that have long term aims.

This country is 'cursed' by part time landlords who are in some cases more interested in speculating on the property market, treating it as a personal pension that tenants will pay for etc etc. Not all by any means but enough that tenants do need some protection from the worst of them.

beauf

The vast majority of LL have one property. How is that speculating?

rightmove

BarryD2 wrote: »

Certainly not a fan of Murphy but there does need to be some balance in the relationship between tenants and landlords. Stability of rent and security of tenure are important issues. IMHO these are more likely to be achieved where larger institutional investors are the landlords, entities that have long term aims.

This country is 'cursed' by part time landlords who are in some cases more interested in speculating on the property market, treating it as a personal pension that tenants will pay for etc etc. Not all by any means but enough that tenants do need some protection from the worst of them.

Cursed with part time landlords????? Rhetoric

Large reits only care about the money. They have no emotion for a good v bad tenant unlike the lad with one gaff

Graham

BarryD2 wrote: »

This country is 'cursed' by part time landlords who are in some cases more interested in speculating on the property market, treating it as a personal pension that tenants will pay for etc etc.

As oppose to the large institutional investors that

a) buy/rent property for fun
b) speculate on property/generate revenue to pay back investors some/many of which are pension funds.

Pete_Cavan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is already the case that a tenancy cannot be terminated during a fixed term. People should educate themselves as to the law before posting drivel.

A tenancy can be terminated if a family member is moving in or the property is being refurbished, as mentioned in the op. As many tenancies here are only 12 months, I don't think it is unreasonable for the tenant to have the right to see out their tenancy even for these reasons, particularly as that is open to abuse.

As for the last line, it worries me if that is acceptable level of posting around here.

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Then it is not a fixed term.

It is entirely possible to have a fixed term with a break clause.

Apparently the RTB agree:

A break clause may be provided for in a fixed term tenancy agreement.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/ending-a-fixed-term-tenancy/

Sarn

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

A tenancy can be terminated if a family member is moving in or the property is being refurbished, as mentioned in the op. As many tenancies here are only 12 months, I don't think it is unreasonable for the tenant to have the right to see out their tenancy even for these reasons, particularly as that is open to abuse.

This does not apply in a fixed term lease without a break clause. The reasons you are listing are for termination of a Part IV tenancy were a fixed term lease is not in effect.

NIMAN

Did PK challenge him much in the interview?

Normally Pat is good at challenging spoofers.

acequion

seasidedub wrote: »

Paul Murphy was on Newstalk today with Pat Kenny. He wants it to be illegal to give tenants notice to leave if property is to be sold - i.e. you can only sell with a tenant in situ. He claims this is the norm all over Europe. I've lived in Germany, Finland and Slovenia as a tenant and this is simply not true.

He also wants it to be either illegal or for landlords to have to pay large amounts of compensation if tenants are given notice for you or family to move in, or renovation work. So, all of you who have children who moved abroad in the recession and rented out their negative equity houses - what if they get jobs and move back? Are they to be homeless?

Or if you get transferred abroad for a year or so and rent out the house? He wants it to be illegal for you to get it back.

This barking mad leftie nonsense has to stop. Private landlords are not responsible for the housing crisis. A landlord provides a service. Accommodation. Not homes, just accommodation which you can call home as long as you pay and behave. If the landlord needs it back, it is his/hers to do so. People in long term housing need require public housing and it's not landlords faults the state won't build.

I don't have a problem with Paul Murphy perse and think Ireland could do with more left wing politicians. BUT I fully agree with every word of this post. The housing crisis is not the fault of private landlords who should not be made to feel pressurised into plugging the gap and providing a social service. It's the state responsibility to build and build is what they need to do.

sportsfan90

NIMAN wrote: »

Did PK challenge him much in the interview?

Normally Pat is good at challenging spoofers.

He wasn't really challenged much by Pat unfortunately but I'd put that down to Murphy being not the only contributor - the director of the Residential Landlords Association was speaking aswell so it was more a back and forth between the two.

Garibaldi?

No contest betweeen Pie in the Sky Paul and the guy from the Landlords' Association who was balanced in his approach and had solid arguments, facts and figures.

Mad_maxx

acequion wrote: »

I don't have a problem with Paul Murphy perse and think Ireland could do with more left wing politicians. BUT I fully agree with every word of this post. The housing crisis is not the fault of private landlords who should not be made to feel pressurised into plugging the gap and providing a social service. It's he state responsibility to build and build is what they need to do.

Ireland needs more left wing politicians like we need more wet Wednesday's

Garibaldi?

Murphy was really shown up by the well-informed, balanced and intelligent guy from the Landlords Association. He sounded as vague as bedamned! Did himself no favours there!!

Garibaldi?

Murphy's plan is ridiculous! Landlords would be afraid to renew leases because the property would be caught up for six years with no possibility of regaining it no matter what eventuality in the property owner's life! Countless families would be forced onto the housing list. Moronic idea!!

ted1

BarryD2 wrote: »

Certainly not a fan of Murphy but there does need to be some balance in the relationship between tenants and landlords. Stability of rent and security of tenure are important issues. IMHO these are more likely to be achieved where larger institutional investors are the landlords, entities that have long term aims.

This country is 'cursed' by part time landlords who are in some cases more interested in speculating on the property market, treating it as a personal pension that tenants will pay for etc etc. Not all by any means but enough that tenants do need some protection from the worst of them.

At the moment it’s totakky skewed towards tenants.
Try getting rid of a tenant who is not paying rent. Try getting money from a tenant who wrecked the place.

Samuel T. Cogley

I don't think people realise how close this is to actually coming in! It's currently being debated!

acequion

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Ireland needs more left wing politicians like we need more wet Wednesday's

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it!

Of course Ireland needs more left wing politicians and we need more variety on the political spectrum. All we've ever had in this country are FF,FG or FF and FG propped up by various assortments of FF lite and FG lite or propped up by each other as is the case currently.

So I'd certainly welcome more choice on election day.

But that's not what this particular thread is about.

Garibaldi?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I don't think people realise how close this is to actually coming in! It's currently being debated!

An absolute disaster. Tenancies will not be renewed.This will be devastating for people.Fair-minded landlords who were perfectly happy with a modest rent will be too apprehensive to renew and will have the nuisance of an empty house on their hands. A no-win situation all around!

Samuel T. Cogley

Garibaldi? wrote: »

An absolute disaster. Tenancies will not be renewed.This will be devastating for people.Fair-minded landlords who were perfectly happy with a modest rent will be too apprehensive to renew and will have the nuisance of an empty house on their hands. A no-win situation all around!

I know boards is not a representative sample but there is already two LLs in the other thread giving notice and selling up.

Pussyhands

The people who are backing this type of nonsense are the same people who shout about no evictions ever...even if you never paid a day of your mortgage. Absolute cretins. It annoys me that they are the ones shouting the loudest....****ing it up for normal working folk.

tvjunki

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I know boards is not a representative sample but there is already two LLs in the other thread giving notice and selling up.

Add me to your list. Given tenants notice one up for sale now.

You could not make this rubbish up.

You take risks of mortgage maintenance deal with anti social behaviour, non payment of rent, overholding, tenants leaving property in bits if leave their trash behind and now you will not be able to sell with vacant possession or move back in without compensating the tenant!

What bank is going to give potential landlords a mortgage for future purchases. I have the family home rented out but it will sit empty...it will be upsetting to sell but no choice.,

Why cannot landlords be compensated for pain and suffering from bad tenant?
There is no recourse if a tenant just gets up and walks out. Using rtb to get your money back is a waste if time and money.

The lefties are getting what they want. When more landlords sell up there will be more families in hotels and b n bs. Wait for the Reits to sell up when it is not worth their while but at the moment they pay almost no tax so are making loads. Money not even staying in the country.

The landlords that did not screw their tenants over with upping rents to the highest (I have tenants on rent allowance) have now had to find alternative accommodation.may end up in hotel B and B but cannot risk being caught with a sitting tenant. There will be more empty properties.

Banks are still not lending or are very slow to lend. This will definitely stop or reduce b t l mortgage offers.

garhjw

If this bill somehow gets through it will significant reduce property prices. Knock on effect will be a significant reduction in CGT fro the government..... properties will be unsellable

garhjw

garhjw wrote: »

If this bill somehow gets through it will significant reduce property prices. Knock on effect will be a significant reduction in CGT fro the government..... properties will be unsellable

Surely it would just reduce supply even further, which will have the opposite effect and push prices up?

Anyway Murphy is a cretin and if anyone who has ever voted for him reads this: you're even worse.

overkill602

Sent a couple of tenants packing last year legally ending part4s could see this coming now i use a totally different model have never spoken to RTB in my life hope I never will i am in a high demand area students and short lets all the way with very strict vetting.
This hurts tenants in the long run with reduced supply and less investment in the sector

Havent heard the interview did Pat not challenge him tenant would have more rights to the person who may have a mortage on a property just ridiculous.

3DataModem

I think the bottom line is that landlords would be happy to accept the current (and even some of the proposed) tenant protections, if they had absolutely any recourse in the case of non-payment / overholding.

mikep

Murphy, Coppinger, Daly et al want to drive all the landlords out so the state will HAVE to provide housing based on revenue from taxing "the rich".

I can see the income level to be defined as "the rich" becoming ever lower so eventually those on just over the average industrial wage will be "the rich" at that point it will make no sense for anyone to work...what happens then....

Biggest problem is that SF and FF seem to want to keep up with the lefty ideas so this could all become too real too fast..

jo2509

I actually just posted a thread yesterday about my plans to rent out my house (first time landlord) when i move in with my partner.



I am, however, seriously considering leaving the place empty for a year or two and continuing with the mortgage payments until such time i decide to sell.


I'm starting to think i can't be bothered with the hassle.

Old diesel

BarryD2 wrote: »

Certainly not a fan of Murphy but there does need to be some balance in the relationship between tenants and landlords. Stability of rent and security of tenure are important issues. IMHO these are more likely to be achieved where larger institutional investors are the landlords, entities that have long term aims.

This country is 'cursed' by part time landlords who are in some cases more interested in speculating on the property market, treating it as a personal pension that tenants will pay for etc etc. Not all by any means but enough that tenants do need some protection from the worst of them.

Imagine if the only way you could lease or PCP a car was through random people on Done deal who only did it as a sideline.

We'd all consider it completely crazy - yet it's how housing works.

Let's get real here - housing is actually too important to be left to the whims of random people jumping in and out of the sector.

Unfortunately there's no halfway house between REITS and the small guy - yet that's likely needed.

mikep

jo2509 wrote: »

I actually just posted a thread yesterday about my plans to rent out my house (first time landlord) when i move in with my partner.



I am, however, seriously considering leaving the place empty for a year or two and continuing with the mortgage payments until such time i decide to sell.


I'm starting to think i can't be bothered with the hassle.

My father recently moved into a nursing home leaving his home empty and based on advice from someone who knows we have decided to leave it vacant..

Not worth it...

Garibaldi?

And the apprehensive landlord will have the horrible task of breaking the bad news to tenants(most of whom are nice people, as are landlords). A ridiculous and punitive system!

machalla

Old diesel wrote: »

Imagine if the only way you could lease or PCP a car was through random people on Done deal who only did it as a sideline.

We'd all consider it completely crazy - yet it's how housing works.

Let's get real here - housing is actually too important to be left to the whims of random people jumping in and out of the sector.

Unfortunately there's no halfway house between REITS and the small guy - yet that's likely needed.

Would there be any car lending if the option to seize the car wasn't on the table from the banks or car companies for non payment? The level of risk would be unsustainable.

The same does not apply in a rental context. There are no effective sanctions to be applied on any tenant who ceases to pay the rent. The level of risk is rapidly becoming unsustainable except for those with the resources to absorb multi-year rental losses and large repair bills.

Garibaldi?

Any landlord who was between two minds about selling will now get out and enjoy the few quid made on the sale. It's not worth the hassle. And tenants as a rule are ok. It's the nonsensical regulations that have destroyed the operation.

Old diesel

machalla wrote: »

Would there be any car lending if the option to seize the car wasn't on the table from the banks or car companies for non payment? The level of risk would be unsustainable.

The same does not apply in a rental context. There are no effective sanctions to be applied on any tenant who ceases to pay the rent. The level of risk is rapidly becoming unsustainable except for those with the resources to absorb multi-year rental losses and large repair bills.

Of course there needs to be an ability to take the property back.

The point is that the WHOLE model needs to change.

Wheres Me Jumper?

i was initially concerned about this bill but when i heard it had been dreamt up by these loony leftie idiots like Murphy my concern abated somewhat.
i dont see any sensible TD supporting this nonsense, and any that does will never be re-elected imo.

in an irronic twist murphy and his ilk are doing LLs a favour, by highlighting the mad-cap regulations that are already in place, many of which need to be abolished/amended.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Graham wrote: »

It is entirely possible to have a fixed term with a break clause.

Apparently the RTB agree:


https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/ending-a-fixed-term-tenancy/

it does seem that the break clause is of little/no use once the tenancy becomes Part 4,

"A break clause may be provided for in a fixed term tenancy agreement. If, for example, the break clause could be exercised after 18 months, and the landlord wanted to exercise the break clause after this time, the tenant could rely on their Part 4 rights to remain in the dwelling"

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/ending-a-fixed-term-tenancy/

Graham

Break clauses generally grant the landlord the right to end the tenancy under the exact same grounds they can use to end a part 4 tenancy.

E.g. break clause cab be invoked if the owner wants to sell, renovate, requires the property for family.....