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!