New Government rules for LLs when selling their property etc.

Spanish Eyes

Just saw this earlier.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/landlords-who-end-tenancy-to-sell-must-sign-contracts-within-nine-months-1.3849873

I am presuming this is designed to ensure that LLs who evict in order to sell actually follow through on the sale. Although I thought there were already measures in place to stop this. Puzzled.

There are tightening up of other rules too.

Wondered if this is an amendment to LL/Tenant law or a regulation or what? Hadn't heard about it until today.

hmmm

The effect as ever will be to reduce supply by making renting less attractive. I'm baffled by what the government strategy is.

The thing to have done was to get massive amounts of new rental stock into the market through corporate landlords, and then drive the small landlord out (if that was the intention). Not do it now.

garhjw

More bureaucracy

Benny Biscotti

hmmm wrote: »

The effect as ever will be to reduce supply by making renting less attractive. I'm baffled by what the government strategy is.

The thing to have done was to get massive amounts of new rental stock into the market through corporate landlords, and then drive the small landlord out (if that was the intention). Not do it now.

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

DubCount

I'm not sure when it happened, but as some point, official Ireland decided that the obligation to provide housing should fall on landlords, whether or not they get paid, whether or not they can afford it, whether or not they want to.

If I want to become a retailer, I can open a shop. If its not working out, I can close the shop. If I become a landlord, I'm expected to keep being a landlord forever.

We have a lack of supply of accommodation. We have a particular lack of supply of rental accommodation. These rule changes only serve to encourage existing landlords to leave the market, and discourages new landlords from entering the market.

Politicians need to understand the responsibility to providing accommodation is their responsibility, not landlords. If the state wants more rental property, the state should encourage landlordism, or directly enter the landlord business themselves. Trying to keep landlords in the market through the use of force, will ultimately fail.

hmmm

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

Because it feeds into the mood music that the government is anti-landlord. A lot of people who are maybe considering becoming landlords are going to see that this is a one-way street, and who knows what comes next - maybe the government will do what it's being urged to do by some people and actually prevent landlords from removing tenants at all, who knows.

The number one issue for landlords is, from what I hear, the ability to quickly remove bad tenants. No attention is being given to this.

We should be leaving populism to SF and the other hurdy gurdy political parties, and stop with the quick fixes which we know will do the opposite of what is intended. The number of people affected by unscrupulous landlords claiming to sell up when they aren't is very small, whereas the impact on reducing supply is likely to be much higher.

voluntary

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

It's scaring off potential new entrants to the market. Landlords will always be selling, the key is to have new landlords replacing old ones. More restrictions you impose on a specific business, less attractive it become. I don't need to explain what reducing competition means for the customer (tenant in this case).

GGTrek

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just saw this earlier.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/landlords-who-end-tenancy-to-sell-must-sign-contracts-within-nine-months-1.3849873

I am presuming this is designed to ensure that LLs who evict in order to sell actually follow through on the sale. Although I thought there were already measures in place to stop this. Puzzled.

There are tightening up of other rules too.

Wondered if this is an amendment to LL/Tenant law or a regulation or what? Hadn't heard about it until today.

It was all announced by Murphy at the Oireachtas debate that I posted in this forum on the 22nd of January:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109216453&postcount=3


"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."

BTW: Yes, to perform this the Oireachtas will have to change the statute (AGAIN) through the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2018

Maya22

Is this enacted immediately or is it planned for a few months down the line? Gave my tenants notice months ago for a substantial refurb (serious renovations, gutting the place, walls and all). Should we still go ahead? As far as I’m aware, we meet all the criteria but the goalposts keep being moved

handlemaster

Just more BS. Tenants will end up paying for the higher risk landlords take on actually renting out property. In particular any new landlords coming into the market

The_Conductor

All this does- is remove further small landlords and houses from the system- in favour of large REITs and apartments (esp. in the Dublin area).
If this is the intention- it will succeed- if not- well, people on the sidelines cheering haven't done their homework properly.

Roll on the RTB annual report (July-Aug)- we need to keep an eye on the evolution of landlords, tenancies and property types in the Irish market.
All they've done the last few years- is play with the stats- to minimise the obviousness of the exit of small landlords and houses from the market- by bringing the housing associations onboard in a manner to hide the exodus. That particular rabbit has been well and truly cooked, lets see whats next out of the hat.

beauf

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

It's more the worry what will they do next.

LuckyLloyd

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

ted1

No issue with any of the changes*

*provided they make it possible to quickly evict tenants who don’t pay rent. Or cause anti social issues

ted1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

Landlords selling will be u fee pressure to sell within 9 months and may feel obliged to take a lower offer.

3DataModem

Some interesting thoughts on rent control

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/

beauf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

You think having no means of removing tenants will encourage people to become/stay landlords. You think constantly changing the rules will do the same. I guess the option if you don't like the rules is to sell up while you're still allowed to. They will stop that soon too.

DubCount

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

Issuing a notice to terminate for the purpose of selling is not a way around RPZ rules. Even after the property is sold, the RPZ restrictions stay with the property and are taken on by the new purchaser.

There is already a requirement to sign a Statutory Declaration when issuing a notice to quit for the purpose of a sale. Why is that not sufficient to stop any blaggarding.

9 months may be long enough in many circumstances. What happens if a property is in a rural location with a slower property market or is a very high end property which again can move slowly. I've recently had a property sale held up for 6 months alone by a mapping error in the land registry. Why is 9 months plucked out of thin air and considered reasonable for the entire market?

Overall, this is just another squeeze on landlords who have have seen a procession of legislation changes designed to make it harder to leave the market, and harder to stay in the market. When was the last time the Irish media, housing charities, or any politician talked about proposals in favor of landlords in stead of tenants? What about creating an faster process for evicting non-paying or anti-social tenants? There are no politicians adding that type of thing to the proposed legislation to balance the continuing increase in tenant rights.

voluntary

Landlords who terminate a tenancy because they intend to sell a property will now have to enter into a contract for sale within nine months of the date of termination, or offer to re-let the property to a former tenant if not.

https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-government-new-rent-laws-april-2019-4577322-Apr2019/

So a tenant moves out, you spend 2 months renovating and preparing the sale, then engage an EA etc. You've 7 months left. Trying to find a buyer, which can take even 12 months, but let's assume it takes only 5 months. You found a buyer and go Sale Agreed, but as this is a chain transaction, it takes another 5 months to complete. The worse case scenario is buying from a bank, as the process from SA to signing a contract may take over 1 year in some cases.

So what then, let's say you go Sale Agreed (or maybe not yet), 9 months passes and you get a choice. You offer the house back to the former tenant for rent, or face large penalties because you didn't find a buyer on time?

Do they have any brains in this government?


The effect of such legislation: private landlords running away from the business in even larger numbers = even less rental properties on the market. The only winner here is REITS as their competition from the private market is being effectively shut down by the legislation.

3DataModem

The thing about this rule (and other "offer for re-let" rules) is in the detail.

You send a registered letter to the forwarding address provided stating "let me know if interested within the next 28 days".

Some tenants won't give you a forwarding address - to avoid any overdue bills being redirected - so you are left with the address they gave you on the lease when they moved in. Some tenants forwarding address is unreliable, it could be a family home that they don't visit much etc.

And of course most ex-tenants won't be able to act on such an offer within a reasonable time period (say, 28 days) so the landlord who abuses this rule can have some comfort that they are more or less off the hook.

Unless of course a tenant is specifically waiting for the nine-month sale window to expire, but I cannot imagine that will be a significant number.

Another lovely-sounding rule with zero teeth, easily circumvented by the bad actors.

voluntary

3DataModem wrote: »

Unless of course a tenant is specifically waiting for the nine-month sale window to expire, but I cannot imagine that will be a significant number.

Let's say tenants rents for 800, which is well under the market rates. The landlord kicks him out, he finds a new place, for 1800 this time. 9 months later, he gets an offer of going back to the old place for 800 pm. He would be stupid not to take it.


What happens to landlord who genuinely tries to sell his house, but doesn't complete in 9 months?

Samuel T. Cogley

I thought the current rule was actually 6 months for sale.

Thephantomsmask

DubCount wrote: »

Issuing a notice to terminate for the purpose of selling is not a way around RPZ rules. Even after the property is sold, the RPZ restrictions stay with the property and are taken on by the new purchaser.

There is already a requirement to sign a Statutory Declaration when issuing a notice to quit for the purpose of a sale. Why is that not sufficient to stop any blaggarding.

Because the cost of a statutory declaration from a solicitor will easily be recouped in the rent hike when the property is back up on daft 2 weeks later. If it were any deterrent then I wouldn't currently be chasing an ex landlord through the court to enforce the damages awarded by the RTB for exactly that scenario, pretending to sell to bypass the RPZ.

beauf

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

Because the cost of a statutory declaration from a solicitor will easily be recouped in the rent hike when the property is back up on daft 2 weeks later. If it were any deterrent then I wouldn't currently be chasing an ex landlord through the court to enforce the damages awarded by the RTB for exactly that scenario, pretending to sell to bypass the RPZ.

How would any of these changes change the requirement to go to court. It won't.

pc7

Focus Ireland on Morning Ireland want it brought it that there is a moratorium on landlords being able to sell, their proposal is that they can only sell if the tenant is left in place. Sweet suffering Jebus I can't think of any other market with so much interference and meddling.

Thephantomsmask

I never said it would remove the need to go to court, simply answering your point that current rules should be enough to stop blaggarding. They aren't, landlords simply hope the ex tenants won't bother following it up. A statutory declaration is meaningless, the RTB cannot act on them and nobody is going to waste their time and money trying to get a criminal conviction for breach of it.

I would be in favour of keeping the current rules and tougher sanctions for the people breaking them. Currently the landlord cannot even be forced to charge the new tenants the appropriate rent rate, on foot of a complaint by the ex tenants, unless they complain themselves. They aren't going to do that for fear of a sudden need for a family member to move in or some other excuse to get rid of them.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

The effect as ever will be to reduce supply by making renting less attractive. I'm baffled by what the government strategy is.

The thing to have done was to get massive amounts of new rental stock into the market through corporate landlords, and then drive the small landlord out (if that was the intention). Not do it now.

I’d look at as a positive step in that these properties would be purchased as private dwellings, thereby freeing up their previous homes for rent/sale.

tretorn

pc7 wrote: »

Focus Ireland on Morning Ireland want it brought it that there is a moratorium on landlords being able to sell, their proposal is that they can only sell if the tenant is left in place. Sweet suffering Jebus I can't think of any other market with so much interference and meddling.

I have never heard such nonsense, who would buy a house with sitting tenants in place unless they got the property for half nothing.

If a landlord is selling its more than likely its because prices are high at the moment so he wants to get out before prices crash. He will have to limited buyer interest with sitting tenants and this is discriminating against him purely because he is a landlord. These provisions are massively affecting landlords constitutional rights regarding their property.

I am so glad my tenants are gone and I will never let my house again. My tenants told me they had found a house and next text was to say the key was in the porch and they were gone, I have no idea where so if bills were unpaid I would have nowhere to send them.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

I’d look at as a positive step in that these properties would be purchased as private dwellings, thereby freeing up their previous homes for rent/sale.

Supply of new builds is slowly improving. That's what will make a difference. As they can set high rents people will still rent them out. So more stock is available but rents still rising because supply is from new properties coming to market. Older properties with cheaper rents will leave the rental market.

beauf

tretorn wrote: »

I have never heard such nonsense, who would buy a house with sitting tenants in place unless they got the property for half nothing...

Exactly. Which why RPZ effect houses prices.
They won't return to rental either as their rents are too low.

Fol20

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

Not really. Your going to wait until the tenant leaves before you advertise so you can clean it up and maybe out a new lick of paint on the place. The quickest i have ever heard a deal take place is 3 months after you may have advertised for 2-4 weeks.thats already 4 months without issues. Sprinkle ina few issues and this can easily go above 9 months

Claw Hammer

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

A landlord can only market the property whe a teat vacates. It can take time to get an offer. It can take further time to get an acceptable offer. After that a contract has to issue. If the buyer realises the landlord has to sign the contract, they can hold things up until the last minute when the landlord will have to sign whatever the buyer wants or pull out of the sale and offer the property back to the old tenant. In receiver sales it ca be a very lengthy period between removing the tenant and being in a position to sign the contract for sale. Receivers will now throw tenants out automatically when they take over. More misery for tenants.

voluntary

pc7 wrote: »

Focus Ireland on Morning Ireland want it brought it that there is a moratorium on landlords being able to sell, their proposal is that they can only sell if the tenant is left in place. Sweet suffering Jebus I can't think of any other market with so much interference and meddling.

Which would basically mean you could sell to investors only. No bank would give a residential mortgage where a tenant comes with the house.

A dream legislation for BTL investors, as these properties would likely go to the market with a solid discount.

voluntary

And what if landlord simply doesn't want to rent out any more? Is the legislation basically saying that if you enter this business, there's no end to it enforced by huge penalties?
If a landlord wants a 1 year break, going on holidays or just for a peace of mind or whatever. Would he be not allowed to stop renting unless he sells within 9 months?

tretorn

voluntary wrote: »

And what if landlord simply doesn't want to rent out any more? Is the legislation basically saying that if you enter this business, there's no end to it enforced by huge penalties?
If a landlord wants a 1 year break, going on holidays or just for a peace of mind or whatever. Would he be not allowed to stop renting unless he sells within 9 months?

Yes, thats basically it.

Does anyone know the details of tenancy law in other European countries. The Government are presumably looking to other countries for inspiration and tenants rights may be stronger where historically people do rent for their lifetime.

The_Conductor

Any proposed changes in taking back property for personal use?
E.g. many landlords bought property in the expectation that they'd retire into it or use it for when their children are going to college etc.
Keep in mind that over 87% of landlords own three or fewer properties- and 61% own only one property other than their PPR (and 28% of landlords only own a single property (and are renting the property that they currently live in)- which they are letting- not living in (because of work or other commitments).

Its a complex ecosystem- with many reasons that different things are happening.

sk8board

tretorn wrote: »

I have never heard such nonsense, who would buy a house with sitting tenants in place unless they got the property for half nothing.

(full time LL here)

This is a key concern I’d have - im not an accidental LL, it’s an investment market to me.
I’ve been doing it for almost 15 years (happily too), and in 2012 the gov decided it was the private LLs role to resolve the public housing requirements. It was a fair decision at the time - no public money available and 22,000 properties on Daft. I have no problem with it and indeed signed the HAP contracts for yet another tenant (excellent) earlier this week

However, 120k of the 170k registered LLs are accidental with one property rented - the investment risks are now such that it makes no sense to hold that asset, nor ‘risk’ renting it.

With property prices plateauing, and rules tightening on their ability to sell, accidental LLs have a perfect opportunity to sell - and as the RTB report showed last month, selling they certainly are.

For years, I mindlessly track the Daft rental total most weeks on their app - usually it drops in dec and pops in Jan. this year it has stayed down, consistently staying around 2,850/2950 now.

Let me be very clear - all these rules help me, as a full time (professional?) LL. they protect good tenants and drive out accidental LL, all while making the market even smaller.
The RPZ rules locked in my rent at high yields too.

I keep saying it - allow LLs with multiple properties to form companies, professionalise, expand (B2L mortgage rates are just under 5%) and in return for all these pro-tenant protections.

tretorn

I just cant understand why the local authorities just cant build houses.

They are handing millions over to landlords in HAP payments and this is an inefficent use of money. Is it because many TDs are landlords, this has been said but is it true.

And not to mention how much public money is wastefully going to prop up the numerous housing charities involved and yet nothing to show at the end of the day.

And something has to be done about those big consortiums buying up entire housing developments, who is behind this money and where are the rental receipts going.They are preventing young working couples getting a foot in the property market and effectively forcing these people to pay half their income in rent in some cases with no tax relief given.

There is so much rotten stuff at the core of the housing situation and the powerful have a vested interest in keeping housing supply low.

1huge1

Does anyone know if this has actually been enacted? The article on the Irish Times reads like it's in effect straight away but the article in the Journal keeps referring to it as a proposal.

tretorn

I was wondering that too.

I read it in the Times and understood it to be enacted.

Spanish Eyes

1huge1 wrote: »

Does anyone know if this has actually been enacted? The article on the Irish Times reads like it's in effect straight away but the article in the Journal keeps referring to it as a proposal.

That was a question I posed in the OP.

I'm guessing that it is a proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act, but like others I'm not sure that is has been passed yet. I'm sure it would have been in the news during its passage through the Dail and Seanad.

Or maybe it slipped in under the radar. :eek:

Fol20

sk8board wrote: »

(full time LL here)

This is a key concern I’d have - im not an accidental LL, it’s an investment market to me.
I’ve been doing it for almost 15 years (happily too), and in 2012 the gov decided it was the private LLs role to resolve the public housing requirements. It was a fair decision at the time - no public money available and 22,000 properties on Daft. I have no problem with it and indeed signed the HAP contracts for yet another tenant (excellent) earlier this week

However, 120k of the 170k registered LLs are accidental with one property rented - the investment risks are now such that it makes no sense to hold that asset, nor ‘risk’ renting it.

With property prices plateauing, and rules tightening on their ability to sell, accidental LLs have a perfect opportunity to sell - and as the RTB report showed last month, selling they certainly are.

For years, I mindlessly track the Daft rental total most weeks on their app - usually it drops in dec and pops in Jan. this year it has stayed down, consistently staying around 2,850/2950 now.

Let me be very clear - all these rules help me, as a full time (professional?) LL. they protect good tenants and drive out accidental LL, all while making the market even smaller.
The RPZ rules locked in my rent at high yields too.

I keep saying it - allow LLs with multiple properties to form companies, professionalise, expand (B2L mortgage rates are just under 5%) and in return for all these pro-tenant protections.

They do allow ll form companies. I had looked into a few years ago however from a taxation point of view, it didnt make sense when your trying to take the money back out into your own company. The corp surcharge of an extra 20pc didnt help either. There is a good post on askaboutmoney comparing the two optons. Its only good if you want to keep investing the money into the company and not spend any of it on yourself.

sk8board

Fol20 wrote: »

They do allow ll form companies. I had looked into a few years ago however from a taxation point of view, it didnt make sense when your trying to take the money back out into your own company. The corp surcharge of an extra 20pc didnt help either. There is a good post on askaboutmoney comparing the two optons. Its only good if you want to keep investing the money into the company and not spend any of it on yourself.

Exactly - it makes no sense currently as the system isn’t designed for it.
Rental income is taxed at paye rates from the days decades ago when there were far fewer LLs, everyone was effectively an accidental LL, and it was never deemed to be another more than additional income.
An afterthought.
No other investment vertical has its income or proceeds treated as such. Not that long ago the CGT rate was 20% an is currently 33% - meanwhile accidental LLs who have a paye salary over €34k are paying income tax through the nose on their rent - all of the risks and very few of the gains.

There is no logical reason to stay invested in such a market - unless you need your house back for family reasons at some stage - in which case they need to sell it.

IAmTheReign

voluntary wrote: »

Let's say tenants rents for 800, which is well under the market rates. The landlord kicks him out, he finds a new place, for 1800 this time. 9 months later, he gets an offer of going back to the old place for 800 pm. He would be stupid not to take it.


What happens to landlord who genuinely tries to sell his house, but doesn't complete in 9 months?

This here highlights the total stupidity of the proposal. It shafts both the ex-landlord looking to sell and the new one by encouraging the tenant to break his lease and go back to the previous property.

The Student

voluntary wrote: »

And what if landlord simply doesn't want to rent out any more? Is the legislation basically saying that if you enter this business, there's no end to it enforced by huge penalties?
If a landlord wants a 1 year break, going on holidays or just for a peace of mind or whatever. Would he be not allowed to stop renting unless he sells within 9 months?

No I don't think so. I think what is meant is that if you want to re rent the property within the period the last tenant gets first refusal. Even if they don't take it the next tenant enjoys the rent price of the previous tenant.

If you don't rent out anymore there is no impact on you. It would be unconstitutional to stop you leaving your property vacant. You will be levied with the vacant property tax but the State cant stop you from owning the property.

The only way the State can force you to sell is by a compulsory purchase order.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I thought the current rule was actually 6 months for sale.

The current rule is very different: the landlord intends, within three months of the termination date, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

Once you put it out for sale (you have three months to start the sale process from the termination date), you have as much time as you wish to sell it.

gizmo555

The_Conductor wrote: »

E.g. many landlords bought property in the expectation that they'd retire into it or use it for when their children are going to college etc.

That's exactly what I did. When my son was 18 months old we bought an apartment as an investment, but also with a long term plan that he'd use it when going to college.

Now he's 18 years of age and, God willing, will be at university and living in the apartment next September. It was rented out until July of last year, when our last tenant moved out, because they had bought a property of their own.

I could have rented it out for another year, but with all the hassle, the high tax rates on the rental income and, most importantly, the risk now that once someone moves in it may be impossible to get them back out, I couldn't be bothered.

So, yet another residential property coming off the rental market because of the unintended but entirely predictable consequences of the legislation.

Claw Hammer

voluntary wrote: »

And what if landlord simply doesn't want to rent out any more? Is the legislation basically saying that if you enter this business, there's no end to it enforced by huge penalties?
If a landlord wants a 1 year break, going on holidays or just for a peace of mind or whatever. Would he be not allowed to stop renting unless he sells within 9 months?

The landlord can decide to stop letting, but it must be on the end of a part 4. That has been the case since the RTA came into effect.

GGTrek

Maya22 wrote: »

Is this enacted immediately or is it planned for a few months down the line? Gave my tenants notice months ago for a substantial refurb (serious renovations, gutting the place, walls and all). Should we still go ahead? As far as I’m aware, we meet all the criteria but the goalposts keep being moved

If you have already delivered the notice to the tenants, then you are not affected. New laws cannot apply retrospectively.


With respect to when it is going to be enacted: Brexit has slowed down things (the govvie has got a real emergency with Brexit instead of keeping their time busy tinkering with the rental market to gain media exposure and indirectly votes), so nothing will happen before Easter. I suggest you to look at the Dáil calendar:
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/parliamentaryBusiness/other/2018-09-20_provisional-dail-calendar-of-sittings_en.pdf
Things will only start to move in the second week of May. If they push it fast enough (the bill is at Committee Stage + Report stage + Senad + President) then this legislation change will be approved before the long Summer recess starts on the 12th of July. Otherwise only in September.


People should not confuse announcement from a minister with actual changes in the law. I agree that the reporting from the sold out Irish Times is abysmal as usual.

GGTrek

The Student wrote: »

No I don't think so. I think what is meant is that if you want to re rent the property within the period the last tenant gets first refusal. Even if they don't take it the next tenant enjoys the rent price of the previous tenant.

If you don't rent out anymore there is no impact on you. It would be unconstitutional to stop you leaving your property vacant. You will be levied with the vacant property tax but the State cant stop you from owning the property.

The only way the State can force you to sell is by a compulsory purchase order.

Your interpretation is very likely to be correct, it is probably just smokes and mirrors as usual.


As long as the former landlord does not rent again the property, he/she will still have as much time as he/she wishes to sell or to keep the property vacant. Any other interpretation would be construed as an unjust attack on property rights and in violation of art 43 2°:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article43


"2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property."


combined with art 40 3 2°:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article40
"2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen."


It just depends if some socialist superior court judge decides that the "common good" clause of art 43 2 2° trumps property rights. In the current paternalistic/pumped up "housing crisis" mode, nothing would surprise me anymore. Crisis/wars excuses are always used by politicians to screw up vast parts of society: that is why I believe that government power has to be strictly limited, but instead the vast majority of society believes that more government and regulations are good for them (and the sold out media makes a wonderful propaganda at it).



Very easy to avoid the vacant property tax. They tried it in a few socialists/paternalistic latin jurisdictions and it just does not work for individuals, you just ask a family member or a friend to take a utility bill there and declare he/she lives there and the all powerful bureaucrats in bed with the govvie politicians are screwed.

GGTrek

1huge1 wrote: »

Does anyone know if this has actually been enacted? The article on the Irish Times reads like it's in effect straight away but the article in the Journal keeps referring to it as a proposal.

Please read my post in this same thread:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109855305&postcount=8


Just an announcement/proposal, but it will probably become law this year since it has the support of the government (FG and probably FF otherwise they would not have made the announcement).