Paul Murphy on radio

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

Interested Observer

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.....

BarryD2

rightmove wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

We don't rent anymore. But if I was, I'd much prefer to be renting from a entity that has invested long term in property. An entity that has an interest in providing accommodation to solid reliable tenants and which is in it for decades to come with rents that reflect the general rate of inflation or deflation. Stability.

Graham

BarryD2 wrote: »

We don't rent anymore. But if I was, I'd much prefer to be renting from a entity that has invested long term in property. An entity that has an interest in providing accommodation to solid reliable tenants and which is in it for decades to come with rents that reflect the general rate of inflation or deflation. Stability.

As is your prerogative. As REIT type lettings are generally at the higher end of the market, it's not a luxury that's accessible to a large proportion of renters.

rightmove

BarryD2 wrote: »

We don't rent anymore. But if I was, I'd much prefer to be renting from a entity that has invested long term in property. An entity that has an interest in providing accommodation to solid reliable tenants and which is in it for decades to come with rents that reflect the general rate of inflation or deflation. Stability.

As a tenant until recently I was happy to rent from your average Joe.

Reits are vultures

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

We actually do need them.
But we need more social minded politicians and not nonsense populist sh1te that PM and his ilk spout.

Having our 2 main parties be split along civil war lines and not really a differing ideology is not a good place to be. It ferments the extreme on the other side of the divide, while allowing any dissenting moderate views be dismissed as raving right or loony left (as is Ireland's case)

Basically Labour shat the bed and should never have gone into coalition in 2012

Wheres Me Jumper?

Graham wrote: »

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.....

so what's the point in having a break clause?
there is no need for a break clause as those reasons given are perfectly valid reasons to end a tenancy.

you just need to give your tenant the proper notice.

Graham

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

so what's the point in having a break clause?
there is no need for a break clause as those reasons given are perfectly valid reasons to end a tenancy.

you just need to give your tenant the proper notice.

Because without the break clause/s a landlord can't terminate a fixed term lease even for the reasons allowed for during a part 4 tenancy.

The question should really be, what's the point of a lease given a tenant can get out of it and a landlord can insert break clauses.

The answer is, I've no idea. I can't think of a good reason.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Graham wrote: »

Because without the break clause/s a landlord can't terminate a fixed term lease even for the reasons allowed for during a part 4 tenancy.

The question should really be, what's the point of a lease given a tenant can get out of it and a landlord can insert break clauses.

The answer is, I've no idea. I can't think of a good reason.

indeed but a break clause is utterly meaningless after 6 months as Part 4 supercedes it.

the_syco

BarryD2 wrote: »

We don't rent anymore. But if I was, I'd much prefer to be renting from a entity that has invested long term in property. An entity that has an interest in providing accommodation to solid reliable tenants and which is in it for decades to come with rents that reflect the general rate of inflation or deflation. Stability.

One that would increase the rent every year by 4% until they couldn't get anyone to rent?

Graham wrote: »

The question should really be, what's the point of a lease given a tenant can get out of it and a landlord can insert break clauses.

I'm guessing that the lease will soon be the rent, and rules that if broken, the tenant could be evicted for breaking the (rules of the) lease?

Perifect

Amazingly, Paul Murphy has never been in government so had no role to play in the record high rent prices, huge property prices and the growing homeless crisis. And he's the loony?

Samuel T. Cogley

3DataModem wrote: »

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.

This.