Remove sale of property as a reason to end a lease?

Caranica

Just watching a report on the Green Party manifesto launch. One of the points highlighted is the removal of sale of property as a reason to end a lease.

Surely this is unfeasible, given that banks require vacant possession for residential mortgage release?

Yellow_Fern

Caranica wrote: »

Just watching a report on the Green Party manifesto launch. One of the points highlighted is the removal of sale of property as a reason to end a lease.

Surely this is unfeasible, given that banks require vacant possession for residential mortgage release?

Well I presume the party would just say the third of buyers who buy in cash can purchase it but yeah the Green Party are hopeless. They probably the worst party to fight climate change.

Enter name here

Only in Ireland could a government tell a property owner what they can and can't do with their own property.
Want to fix the housing crisis and drive investment into the market. Takeaway the bias of tenants rights and watch investment grow.

yer man!

Enter name here wrote: »

Only in Ireland could a government tell a property owner what they can and can't do with their own property.
Want to fix the housing crisis and drive investment into the market. Takeaway the bias of tenants rights and watch investment grow.

That's fine but you have to offer some amount of security to the people you're renting to, it's not like they're renting a car from you. If the house is taken off them it can be catastrophic to their life.

The way this needs to be handled is that both the landlord and the tenant is secure. If the tenant stops paying rent the tenant can be removed from the property immediately and also the landlord cannot boot out the tenant for a set period of time for reasons such as selling up or moving back into the property. My tenancy in the Netherlands is built like this, in the first year of the agreement the landlord cannot terminate my lease but at the same time I'm liable for 12 months of rent and if I don't pay he can get the court to remove the money from my bank account and remove me from the property. They don't mess around here but that's good as it offers security for both parties.

handlemaster

It's just another vote getting policy. The people will lap this up and vote for it. But they dknt realise these kind of rules make it much worse in the long run. The political parties have no back bone not kne of them is will to do the heavy lifting.

beauf

yer man! wrote: »

That's fine but you have to offer some amount of security to the people you're renting to, it's not like they're renting a car from you. If the house is taken off them it can be catastrophic to their life.

The way this needs to be handled is that both the landlord and the tenant is secure. If the tenant stops paying rent the tenant can be removed from the property immediately and also the landlord cannot boot out the tenant for a set period of time for reasons such as selling up or moving back into the property. My tenancy in the Netherlands is built like this, in the first year of the agreement the landlord cannot terminate my lease but at the same time I'm liable for 12 months of rent and if I don't pay he can get the court to remove the money from my bank account and remove me from the property. They don't mess around here but that's good as it offers security for both parties.

We already have those tenant protections.

But we have none on the LL side at all.

Removing the ability to sell the property though is ludicrous. The issue is the govt not providing enough housing. The issue is not having to move out of a place. But the lack of places to move into.

handlemaster

beauf wrote: »

We already have those tenant protections.

But we have none on the LL side at all.

Removing the ability to sell the property though is ludicrous. The issue is the govt not providing enough housing. The issue is not having to move out of a place. But the lack of places to move into.

True the government has done nothing but try and deflect at every turn by putting in laws against landlords. But in fairness it has worked the public have lapped this up and not truely focused on the real issues. 1 been landlords having no recourse to unpaid rent 2 no public housing been builth 3 long term public housing tenants living in areas where people want to work.

beauf

Exactly.

yer man!

beauf wrote: »

We already have those tenant protections.

But we have none on the LL side at all.

Removing the ability to sell the property though is ludicrous. The issue is the govt not providing enough housing. The issue is not having to move out of a place. But the lack of places to move into.

But removing the ability to sell in certain cases is not that ridiculous. If I am entering into a contract with a landlord for a property for a set amount of time and he will absolutely get all the money agreed for the term. I should not have to worry about the place being taken away from me if they decide they don't want the hassle any more. After the contract term is up then fair game.

This is where landlord protections would have to come into it yes, you would need to have a mechanism to get all the money agreed. This can be done. At the same time the tenant needs a guarantee that the property will be there for the term agreed.

If you leased a field for a year for example and planted a load of crops that would be harvested in a year, you would not be expecting the landlord to show up 2 months in and say I'm taking the field back in a month, don't want the hassle of this anymore (when there is no breach in contract). Iron clad agreements need to work both ways.

handlemaster

yer man! wrote: »

But removing the ability to sell in certain cases is not that ridiculous. If I am entering into a contract with a landlord for a property for a set amount of time and he will absolutely get all the money agreed for the term. I should not have to worry about the place being taken away from me if they decide they don't want the hassle any more. After the contract term is up then fair game.

This is where landlord protections would have to come into it yes, you would need to have a mechanism to get all the money agreed. This can be done. At the same time the tenant needs a guarantee that the property will be there for the term agreed.

If you leased a field for a year for example and planted a load of crops that would be harvested in a year, you would not be expecting the landlord to show up 2 months in and say I'm taking the field back in a month, don't want the hassle of this anymore (when there is no breach in contract). Iron clad agreements need to work both ways.

And would the same apply to the landlord the tenant would have to pay until the end of the contract if they wanted to break it ?

Palmach

Caranica wrote: »

Just watching a report on the Green Party manifesto launch. One of the points highlighted is the removal of sale of property as a reason to end a lease.

Surely this is unfeasible, given that banks require vacant possession for residential mortgage release?

This is how it is for commercial properties. Only extending it.

DubCount

This is a continuation of a populist trend in Ireland. It only looks at the rental market from a tenants perspective. All political parties (not just the greens), all the media, and all the "Homeless Charity" companies are all pushing this agenda. The view is that a tenancy agreement should be a lifetime commitment for the landlord and a short term commitment from the tenant. Rent Freezes, increasing notice periods, non-discrimination against HAP and all other changes that have recently happened or are proposed follow this populist trend.

A rental market needs tenants and landlords. Further imbalance just chokes supply further and makes things worse for tenants - not better.

yer man!

yer man! wrote: »

But removing the ability to sell in certain cases is not that ridiculous. If I am entering into a contract with a landlord for a property for a set amount of time and he will absolutely get all the money agreed for the term. I should not have to worry about the place being taken away from me if they decide they don't want the hassle any more. After the contract term is up then fair game..

It is ridiculous. A person who is renting is renting, they don’t own the place so they have to accept that they are not going to have 100% security to stay in the place, why should they it’s not their house after all. Tenants protections are already too strong. The 4 year tenancy in the old part 4 was plenty, extending to 6 years was a joke as is any suggestion of getting rid of selling or moving in a family member as reasons to end a tenancy.

Property owners must retain the ultimate rights to their property and be able to regain possession if they wish.

If someone what’s 100% security they buy, simple as that.

yer man!

handlemaster wrote: »

And would the same apply to the landlord the tenant would have to pay until the end of the contract if they wanted to break it ?

Absolutely yes, the tenant would have to pay until the end of the term if they wished to break the contract. That's how my tenancy agreement works in NL.

ZX7R

That is a scary proposal, trying to give more rights to scummy tenents that will stew the system to there advantage.
It's the honest land Lords and tenents I feel sorry for.

handlemaster

yer man! wrote: »

Absolutely yes, the tenant would have to pay until the end of the term if they wished to break the contract. That's how my tenancy agreement works in NL.

At the moment in the republic a tenant can do what they like. Pay, dont pay , trash the place, etc. Nothing happens. Hard to see even with a change to the law who is going to enforce this.. and where will the guarantee for the landlord come form. The landlord has a property and usually the tenant can disappear

yer man!

Byron Important Index wrote: »

It is ridiculous. A person who is renting is renting, they don’t own the place so they have to accept that they are not going to have 100% security to stay in the place, why should they it’s not their house after all. Tenants protections are already too strong. The 4 year tenancy in the old part 4 was plenty, extending to 6 years was a joke as is any suggestion of getting rid of selling or moving in a family member as reasons to end a tenancy.

Property owners must retain the ultimate rights to their property and be able to regain possession if they wish.

If someone what’s 100% security they buy, simple as that.

If they are entering into a legally binding agreement there should be security on both sides. A rental property for a landlord should not really be thought of as your second home, it's business or an investment. You're not coming around and spending the weekend with me as if it's your city getaway. If I am giving you 12 months of payments (for a 1 year contract for example), guaranteed payments, whether I live in it or not I expect it to be there for the full term. Laws like this work well in Europe, no reason it cannot in Ireland.

Why would anyone anywhere consider leasing anything if the owner can come back within the term and decide for no reason, nah, not feeling it. Of course if the diplomatic clause it built into the agreement then it has to work both ways, tenant can up-sticks at any moment giving appropriate notice just like the landlord can decide to sell at any time. Otherwise it has to wait until the end of the term.

I'm giving my landlord 17500 EUR a year to live in the product he is supplying me, I have a guarantee in my contract that the apartment will not be sold in that year and unless the contract is breached I cannot be evicted. I don't want to buy yet as I'm still getting a feel for the area and trying to decide where I want to buy eventually. He gets his money, I get a roof, we both get security.

yer man!

handlemaster wrote: »

At the moment in the republic a tenant can do what they like. Pay, dont pay , trash the place, etc. Nothing happens. Hard to see even with a change to the law who is going to enforce this.. and where will the guarantee for the landlord come form. The landlord has a property and usually the tenant can disappear

That's the key word 'at the moment'. The law and the system needs to be made more robust to hold the tenant to account if they breach the contract.

This is what I am held to, if I breach my contract the court can literally ask my bank for the monies owed to the landlord and I can do nothing about that. If I was on welfare it would be cut off until I cop on. We need these laws and systems in place to give the landlord piece of mind to allow these types of better tenancy agreements to be put in place to give greater security.

yer man!

yer man! wrote: »

That's the key word 'at the moment'. The law and the system needs to be made more robust to hold the tenant to account if they breach the contract.

This is what I am held to, if I breach my contract the court can literally ask my bank for the monies owed to the landlord and I can do nothing about that. If I was on welfare it would be cut off until I cop on. We need these laws and systems in place to give the landlord piece of mind to allow these types of better tenancy agreements to be put in place to give greater security.

I’m sure you are aware that a LL cannot end a fixed term tenancy, even if they want to sell. If you have a 12 month contract, the LL cannot end your tenancy until that fixed term has elapsed, The only tiime a LL can end a tenancy by reason of the property sale, is if no fixed term exists, the tenant in this case has only the benefit of Part 4 rights.

Caranica

Palmach wrote: »

This is how it is for commercial properties. Only extending it.

You can get a commercial mortgage for an occupied property, you cannot get a residential mortgage without vacant possession. The thread is in relation to people wanting to buy and live in previously rented properties.

Eric Cartman

Caranica wrote: »

Just watching a report on the Green Party manifesto launch. One of the points highlighted is the removal of sale of property as a reason to end a lease.

Surely this is unfeasible, given that banks require vacant possession for residential mortgage release?

well I suppose theyll cause a fire sale of houses before the bill can be implemented, resolving the housing crisis for cash buyers quickly.