more one sided tenant arguments

handlemaster

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/the-big-read-the-faces-of-irelands-rental-crisis-38051340.html



journalism that doesnt ask the probing questions misses the facts. The guy who is in a tenants organisation and says tenants havé no rights ?? Come on. The lady who rented out her apartment and it was recked but doesnt say anything about the lost rent and damages for this. Foreign investment companies are not an issue . The issue is the majority of the rental property is been provided by small time landlords who are cruxified with taxes and when things go wrong with tenants there is no way of getting payment for rent owed or damages done. While tenants might think why should I care about that , this risk for a high value asset makes the rent go up. The government are playing a game of try to appeal to voters but its turkeys voting for christmas every turn or move against landlords makes it worse.

Old diesel

The sign in is playing up for me.....

But someone having to leave simply because a landlord won't allow a cot in a bedroom doesn't read well for the landlord.

The problem that landlords advocating for change for themselves - is that the only thing that gets you to the table is been able to show how sky high rents reduce with proposals put forward.

What the landlord advocate needs to consider is......

1) in money terms - why is an increase of 500 to 2,000 a month required.....

2) 2,000 euros a month looks a very high figure - and needs clarity to its neccessity.

3) IF 2 k a month is required to keep a property on the market - then costs need to be looked at. Proposals to help reduce costs could be put forward. Tax reductions - plus assistance with mortgages could be looked at.

Old diesel

A simple change to the law might be to make it illegal for a tenant to be in the rental property beyond the date they are due to leave under a valid notice.

Gardai could then have power to get the tenant out.

An investigation could then take place into full circumstances of the leading up to the removal of the tenant.

Edit - instead of two years to get a tenant out - the tenant would be required to move out by law. Issues can then be subsequently pursued. But landlord gets a reliable fast return of property back first.

Such a law would also have to have measures to tackle any landlord misusing any improved powers on their side.

Deciding what the appropriate punishment is the tricky bit. All you want is the ability for the tenant to be made leave the property.

Once they are removed - there shouldnt be a need for jail or big fines unless a repeat offender.

Fol20

Old diesel wrote: »

The sign in is playing up for me.....

But someone having to leave simply because a landlord won't allow a cot in a bedroom doesn't read well for the landlord.

The problem that landlords advocating for change for themselves - is that the only thing that gets you to the table is been able to show how sky high rents reduce with proposals put forward.

What the landlord advocate needs to consider is......

1) in money terms - why is an increase of 500 to 2,000 a month required.....

2) 2,000 euros a month looks a very high figure - and needs clarity to its neccessity.

3) IF 2 k a month is required to keep a property on the market - then costs need to be looked at. Proposals to help reduce costs could be put forward. Tax reductions - plus assistance with mortgages could be looked at.

1) In strictly money terms, its because a ll can in todays market. LL didnt buy a property to house people for the good of their heart. They bought it to make as much money as possible. From 08 to about 2013, ll were charging half the rent they could get now not because they wanted to but because that is all they could get. The same can be said now but this time the ll is blocking us from getting the deserved rent. It would actually balance out with the ebs and flows but the government dont seem to want anything going for the ll which in turn causes more ll to leave. This cause an effect benefits the ll staying in the market as with less ll, they can up the rent even further.

2)Same as above, you should live in social housing if a business needs to clarify why and they need to stop pushing this onto private entities.

3)It will be the same as developers if they decrease taxes or other benefits to the ll. Rent will stay the same and wont go down however it will make it much more attractive to ll's. The idea of the incentives for developers was to increase building - it has. The idea here to add incentives to ll is to increase amount of ll's in market - it would. The intended consequence of this would be that with more availability, rents would gradually go down however the government are not willing to do this even though it would be better LONG TERM. As they need votes and whatever fluff that doesnt nothing to help the market is more important to them.

Fol20

Old diesel wrote: »

A simple change to the law might be to make it illegal for a tenant to be in the rental property beyond the date they are due to leave under a valid notice.

Gardai could then have power to get the tenant out.

An investigation could then take place into full circumstances of the leading up to the removal of the tenant.

Edit - instead of two years to get a tenant out - the tenant would be required to move out by law. Issues can then be subsequently pursued. But landlord gets a reliable fast return of property back first.

Such a law would also have to have measures to tackle any landlord misusing any improved powers on their side.

Deciding what the appropriate punishment is the tricky bit. All you want is the ability for the tenant to be made leave the property.

Once they are removed - there shouldnt be a need for jail or big fines unless a repeat offender.

A noble idea as less risk would usually bring down rate of return however the government cant be seen to be kicking non paying tenants out even though it hurts the other 99pc of the population.

Old diesel

Fol20 wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

A simple change to the law might be to make it illegal for a tenant to be in the rental property beyond the date they are due to leave under a valid notice.

Gardai could then have power to get the tenant out.

An investigation could then take place into full circumstances of the leading up to the removal of the tenant.

Edit - instead of two years to get a tenant out - the tenant would be required to move out by law. Issues can then be subsequently pursued. But landlord gets a reliable fast return of property back first.

Such a law would also have to have measures to tackle any landlord misusing any improved powers on their side.

Deciding what the appropriate punishment is the tricky bit. All you want is the ability for the tenant to be made leave the property.

Once they are removed - there shouldnt be a need for jail or big fines unless a repeat offender.

A noble idea as less risk would usually bring down rate of return however the government cant be seen to be kicking non paying tenants out even though it hurts the other 99pc of the population.

This is why the monetry cost of risk needs assessing.

The decent tenant will likely be less tolerant of the bad tenant if they can see that it's costing them the good tenants a substantial sum of money over the years.

Another option perhaps is that both landlords and tenants pay a set levy per month that goes into a state pot that then compensates for any issues on either side.

Bit like the way the MIBI shells out for uninsured drivers.

So the landlord with 100 k in damage and lost rent due to a bad tenant gets full payout for that 100 k loss.

It's a clear cost of doing business for landlords and thus needs resolving

amcalester

Old diesel wrote: »

This is why the monetry cost of risk needs assessing.

The decent tenant will likely be less tolerant of the bad tenant if they can see that it's costing them the good tenants a substantial sum of money over the years.

Another option perhaps is that both landlords and tenants pay a set levy per month that goes into a state pot that then compensates for any issues on either side.

Bit like the way the MIBI shells out for uninsured drivers.

So the landlord with 100 k in damage and lost rent due to a bad tenant gets full payout for that 100 k loss.

It's a clear cost of doing business for landlords and thus needs resolving

MIBI is directly funded by the insurance companies and indirectly by increased premiums, so a similar system would just penalize paying tenants.

What’s needed is a way of recouping actual losses from tenants, which hopefully would reduce the cost to paying tenants.

Fol20

Old diesel wrote: »

This is why the monetry cost of risk needs assessing.

The decent tenant will likely be less tolerant of the bad tenant if they can see that it's costing them the good tenants a substantial sum of money over the years.

Another option perhaps is that both landlords and tenants pay a set levy per month that goes into a state pot that then compensates for any issues on either side.

Bit like the way the MIBI shells out for uninsured drivers.

So the landlord with 100 k in damage and lost rent due to a bad tenant gets full payout for that 100 k loss.

It's a clear cost of doing business for landlords and thus needs resolving

Fair point, a balanced assessment should be made to outline issues on both sides. Im very skeptical of these as throughout the past few years, everything the news spews out is very biased and anti ll with little to no improvement for ll and a lot given to tenants.

Any time I hear more costs to the ll, i would be very reluctant. Even right now the RTB want to do yearly registrations to improve visibility of rents. YOu would have thought if they wanted better security of tenure for tenants, it should only be a new registration when a tenant moves out in 5,10 years etc. Its clearly a money grab which adds more costs to ll. Any cost the ll incurs will eventually be added onto the tenants rent.

Good tenants should not have to pay out anything towards bad ones. It is part of the cost of doing business for a ll and a risk you take and its expected you will get stung over the course of a few decades. They should only improve the speed, enforcement of compensation and public documentation of bad tenants.

Squatter

handlemaster wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/the-big-read-the-faces-of-irelands-rental-crisis-38051340.html

journalism that doesnt ask the probing questions misses the facts.

The key role of the 21st century Irish journalist is to produce articles on selected topics that are, in the opinion of the editor, worthy of publishing in the newspaper involved. Do it and one gets paid, fail to do it, and no moolah will be forthcoming! In such a system, sophisticated add ons, such as analysis, balance or any evidence of research are wholly unnecessary.

In this case, KB's set task was to churn out some 1,500 reasonably interesting words on a topical news item in order to fill a reserved space in today's Indo and this he has done!

Old diesel

amcalester wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

This is why the monetry cost of risk needs assessing.

The decent tenant will likely be less tolerant of the bad tenant if they can see that it's costing them the good tenants a substantial sum of money over the years.

Another option perhaps is that both landlords and tenants pay a set levy per month that goes into a state pot that then compensates for any issues on either side.

Bit like the way the MIBI shells out for uninsured drivers.

So the landlord with 100 k in damage and lost rent due to a bad tenant gets full payout for that 100 k loss.

It's a clear cost of doing business for landlords and thus needs resolving

MIBI is directly funded by the insurance companies and indirectly by increased premiums, so a similar system would just penalize paying tenants.

What’s needed is a way of recouping actual losses from tenants, which hopefully would reduce the cost to paying tenants.

A decent tenant might be prepared to pay a levy if it meant they end up with cheaper rents due to the landlord risk being reduced.

Just look at how people responded to the post 2008 tax system on cars after it was introduced in July 08.

The problem with getting 100 k damages from a deliquent tenant is that the tenant might not actually have the 100 k at all.

So that still means a loss.

It's a mess.

amcalester

Old diesel wrote: »

A decent tenant might be prepared to pay a levy if it meant they end up with cheaper rents due to the landlord risk being reduced.

Just look at how people responded to the post 2008 tax system on cars after it was introduced in July 08.

The problem with getting 100 k damages from a deliquent tenant is that the tenant might not actually have the 100 k at all.

So that still means a loss.

It's a mess.

Definitely a mess.

And you’re right that good tenant will probably happily pay a premium on reduced rents but they shouldn't have to. Such a system doesn’t address just how easily and quickly bad tenants can rack up huge arrears or damages.

Address that side of the equation and there’s less need for a MIBI equivalent.

Old diesel

amcalester wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

A decent tenant might be prepared to pay a levy if it meant they end up with cheaper rents due to the landlord risk being reduced.

Just look at how people responded to the post 2008 tax system on cars after it was introduced in July 08.

The problem with getting 100 k damages from a deliquent tenant is that the tenant might not actually have the 100 k at all.

So that still means a loss.

It's a mess.

Definitely a mess.

And you’re right that good tenant will probably happily pay a premium on reduced rents but they shouldn't have to. Such a system doesn’t address just how easily and quickly bad tenants can rack up huge arrears or damages.

Address that side of the equation and there’s less need for a MIBI equivalent.

The extreme route is having Gardai at the door to remove an overholding tenant.

Ditto - treat bad damage as a criminal matter - requiring investigation with jail time on order.

Having the arrears go against the tenants name as a debt which must be repaid permanently - could also help.

Even if on welfare - taking a clear sum each week off the payment makes people think.

Jail time is doable given that we already do that for non payment of TV licence.

overkill602

We have accepted good pays for bad and those in the mortgage market this is accepted in our social parliament and the twats voted in have being tripping over themselves to introduce private bills
all the recent tenant protections are taken from other jurisdictions while conveniently ignoring any LLs issues


"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"?

rightmove

Maybe best advice would be for every ll in the country to boycott the indo

DubCount

rightmove wrote: »

Maybe best advice would be for every ll in the country to boycott the indo

I gave up on paying for newspapers years ago !!

The Indo is not alone in running with this line. Every media outlet and every politician and every "homeless charity" trots out the same sentiment. Landlords are evil, tenants need more protection, everyone has a right to high quality low cost accommodation in the area the choose to live in......

The best way to deal with this is housing supply. That way if a tenant is being abused - they move. If a tenant is being charged too much - they move. If a landlord is being unreasonable - move. They key is having lots of places available to move to. Anything else will not work. It doesn't sell many newspapers, but eventually the penny will have to drop, because there is no other way.

4ensic15

Old diesel wrote: »

A simple change to the law might be to make it illegal for a tenant to be in the rental property beyond the date they are due to leave under a valid notice.

It was illegal until the law was changed. They are unlikely to change back.

Old diesel

DubCount wrote: »

rightmove wrote: »

Maybe best advice would be for every ll in the country to boycott the indo

I gave up on paying for newspapers years ago !!

The Indo is not alone in running with this line. Every media outlet and every politician and every "homeless charity" trots out the same sentiment. Landlords are evil, tenants need more protection, everyone has a right to high quality low cost accommodation in the area the choose to live in......

The best way to deal with this is housing supply. That way if a tenant is being abused - they move. If a tenant is being charged too much - they move. If a landlord is being unreasonable - move. They key is having lots of places available to move to. Anything else will not work. It doesn't sell many newspapers, but eventually the penny will have to drop, because there is no other way.

It needs to be affordable supply though because otherwise the landlord/REITs etc won't be able to sustain the losses that expensive supply will land them with if plentiful supply reduces price.

A unit bought for 400 k will require a higher rent to make a return then one that cost 200 k to buy.

rightmove

Funny how msm hate men and landlords. They never refer much to landladies very much as the narrative has to be simple ...the good v evil thing

4ensic15

Old diesel wrote: »

It needs to be affordable supply though because otherwise the landlord/REITs etc won't be able to sustain the losses that expensive supply will land them with if plentiful supply reduces price.

A unit bought for 400 k will require a higher rent to make a return then one that cost 200 k to buy.

Both units will command the same rent if they are in the same location and are of equal size and specification. Supply needs to be increased but the powers that be are choking supply.

Old diesel

4ensic15 wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

It needs to be affordable supply though because otherwise the landlord/REITs etc won't be able to sustain the losses that expensive supply will land them with if plentiful supply reduces price.

A unit bought for 400 k will require a higher rent to make a return then one that cost 200 k to buy.

Both units will command the same rent if they are in the same location and are of equal size and specification. Supply needs to be increased but the powers that be are choking supply.

My point is that if the new unit is able to be purchased at 200 k - with repayments based on that 200 k - the landlord will be in a better position to handle a reduction in rent due to increased supply.

Vs a 400 k unit.

If we are going to bring in extra supply at stupidly high initial purchase prices then you'd be as well off to just build co op housing, housing association housing and other models of housing by the lorry load.

New supply needs to take the following into account.....

1) current rents are just far too high.

2) what are the requirements of people who need this new supply to live in - whether it's an owner occupier buying a home for themselves or a tenant needing a place they can afford.

What we need as a country is to get a handle on what models of housing we are going for, who will supply it, what cost will we aim for.

Tenants actually have a limit to what they can shell out each month.

the_syco

Old diesel wrote: »

New supply needs to take the following into account.....

New supply has to be built upwards, as although living further away is possible, it adds a higher cost of commuting.

runawaybishop

Old diesel wrote: »

The extreme route is having Gardai at the door to remove an overholding tenant.

Why is that considered extreme!

rightmove

It aint extreme. It would be just played out with violins and tears in the media.

Graces7

rightmove wrote: »

Funny how msm hate men and landlords. They never refer much to landladies very much as the narrative has to be simple ...the good v evil thing

I have had several female landlords and they and the agents always refer to them as " landlord". It has become a generic term.

4ensic15

Old diesel wrote: »

The extreme route is having Gardai at the door to remove an overholding tenant.

Garda have called to the door and arrested overholding tenants. The law was changed in 2017.

rightmove

Kind of the problem I am referring to graces

Graham

Mod Note

You should open a thread about that somewhere rightmove. Somewhere other than A & P.