Rent a Room Eviction Ban

Samuel T. Cogley

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/rent-a-room-tenancies-protected-as-d%C3%A1il-backs-amendment-to-ban-all-evictions-1.4213346?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frent-a-room-tenancies-protected-as-d%25C3%25A1il-backs-amendment-to-ban-all-evictions-1.4213346


Pretty drastic measures being taken if true.

Caranica

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/rent-a-room-tenancies-protected-as-d%C3%A1il-backs-amendment-to-ban-all-evictions-1.4213346?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frent-a-room-tenancies-protected-as-d%25C3%25A1il-backs-amendment-to-ban-all-evictions-1.4213346

Pretty drastic measures being taken if true.

Needs to be passed by the Seanad tomorrow and signed into law by the President. I know at least one poster on here was having issues getting a licensee out. Need to sort it tomorrow morning!

the_syco

Can see people getting evicted by the fcuk tonne if this happens

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/proposed-emergency-measures-for-renters-could-leave-tens-of-thousands-in-debt-warns-o-broin-990024.html

MMr Ó Broin’s amendments include renters who are on a licence or renting a room on a verbal agreement in those who protected by the ban on evictions and also calls for allowances to be made for Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy to establish a scheme aimed at avoiding deferred rents becoming millstones for impacted renters.

Mr Ó Broin said that he accepted such a scheme would be complex and requires the buy-in of banks and landlords, but said that it would ensure burden-sharing in the private rental sector.

I wonder what he means by "the buy-in of banks and landlords"?

Samuel T. Cogley

the_syco wrote: »

Can see people getting evicted by the fcuk tonne if this happens

My thoughts exactly. Anyone with any doubt is going to ask the licencee to leave, pretty much on the spot. It could be Brid Smith just spouting nonsense. Irresponsible nonsense if so.

endacl

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It could be Brid Smith just spouting nonsense.

Referring to licencees as tenants? Yep. If she doesn't know what she's talking about, any opinion she expresses on the matter is moot.

How can it be illegal to ask somebody to leave your house?

Caranica

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My thoughts exactly. Anyone with any doubt is going to ask the licencee to leave, pretty much on the spot. It could be Brid Smith just spouting nonsense. Irresponsible nonsense if so.

It's been reported elsewhere too, it is in the law. I'd be more concerned about the line in that article where it says the law will put a stay on eviction notices already served though.

the_syco

endacl wrote: »

Referring to licencees as tenants?

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/proposed-emergency-measures-for-renters-could-leave-tens-of-thousands-in-debt-warns-o-broin-990024.html

Mr Ó Broin’s amendments include renters who are on a licence or renting a room on a verbal agreement in those who protected by the ban on evictions

Stopping the eviction of a licensee, and preventing it if the owner thinks the licensee is infected a can of worms.

Varik

So it's 25 votes to 24, that'd be 111 abstentions & absences on this amendment.

As to the retroactive enforcement, that's already unconstitutional not that the government care too much about that.

What would the consequence even be for illegally evicting a licensee, this doesn't make them tenants so no RTB.

the_syco wrote: »

Can see people getting evicted by the fcuk tonne if this happens

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/proposed-emergency-measures-for-renters-could-leave-tens-of-thousands-in-debt-warns-o-broin-990024.html

I wonder what he means by "the buy-in of banks and landlords"?

They mean writing off arrears/down debt.

handlemaster

Varik wrote: »

So it's 25 votes to 24, that'd be 111 abstentions & absences on this amendment.

As to the retroactive enforcement, that's already unconstitutional not that the government care too much about that.

What would the consequence even be for illegally evicting a licensee, this doesn't make them tenants so no RTB.




They mean writing off arrears/down debt.

He wants landlords to pay for the tenants basically.

Dav010

handlemaster wrote: »

He wants landlords to pay for the tenants basically.

Can’t see what the penalty would be for asking a guest in your house to leave, they have no statutory rights or protections in relation to tenancies. Stupidly, if the licensee doesn’t have to pay, homeowners just tell them they can’t afford to board them for 3 months. RTB/LA can’t do anything.

Victor

Varik wrote: »

As to the retroactive enforcement, that's already unconstitutional not that the government care too much about that.

The only thing the constitution prohibits from being retroactive are criminal matters. It doesn't stop the Oireachtas from, say, shoving up the LPT on people who evicted people.

The situation is slight past the "that's unconstitutional" stage if an emergency has been declared. 99% of the constitution can be suspended in an emergency.

Yellow_Fern

Insane

y0ssar1an22

i know of a few elderly people who do R & R to younger woking professionals. one was told to move out if they continue working, they continued working by moving home. **** for all involved but if health and safety is the no. 1 priority i hope there is allowance for this in the new legislation.

y0ssar1an22

the_syco wrote: »

Can see people getting evicted by the fcuk tonne if this happens

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/proposed-emergency-measures-for-renters-could-leave-tens-of-thousands-in-debt-warns-o-broin-990024.html

I wonder what he means by "the buy-in of banks and landlords"?

the banks deduct 3 months rent (or whatever the case) from the LL's mortgage permanently (with associated interest) so they can pass the savings to the tenant? will cost a **** ton but the only feasible way that works.

Raging_Ninja

Victor wrote: »

The situation is slight past the "that's unconstitutional" stage if an emergency has been declared. 99% of the constitution can be suspended in an emergency.

Constitution is pretty specific, laws which violate the constitution (except for the ban on the death penalty) can only go unchallenged during a war or armed rebellion. There is no mention of a state of emergency. A pandemic is neither unless the supreme court wants to perform an extreme level of mental gymnastics.

Time

Folks this only applies to licensees in student accommodation. The bill is on Oireachtas.ie, in it under S.3 you’ll see that the licencee is one as defined in S.37 of the 2019 residential tenancies act. That was the law that expanded tenancy rights to student accommodation.

Yellow_Fern

Time wrote: »

Folks this only applies to licensees in student accommodation. The bill is on Oireachtas.ie, in it under S.3 you’ll see that the licencee is one as defined in S.37 of the 2019 residential tenancies act. That was the law that expanded tenancy rights to student accommodation.

Mad that the IT reported it as for rent a rooms.

Time

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Mad that the IT reported it as for rent a rooms.

Tbh if you only read the bill I can see how you’d come to that conclusion. Its still shoddy journalism by them though

Ballso

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Mad that the IT reported it as for rent a rooms.

Smith, Murphy are claiming that its licencees, travellers etc. covered....

Time

Ballso wrote: »

Smith, Murphy are claiming that its licencees, travellers etc. covered....

I imagine they're claiming that on the grounds that the bill says "all tenencies" but the traditional licensee is still not considered a tenancy under the new bill so it'd be impossible for it to be applied to them.

Ap2020

Time wrote: »

Folks this only applies to licensees in student accommodation. The bill is on Oireachtas.ie, in it under S.3 you’ll see that the licencee is one as defined in S.37 of the 2019 residential tenancies act. That was the law that expanded tenancy rights to student accommodation.

The amendment was amendment 19 last night and is now s 5(7) of the bill before the seanad today:

(7) (a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions in this section, all proposed evictions in all tenancies in the State, including those not covered by the Act of 2004, are prohibited during the operation of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, this section applies to all Local Authority and Approved Housing body dwellings.

(c) For the avoidance of doubt, all Travellers who are currently resident in any location should not during this crisis be evicted from that location except where movement is required to ameliorate hardship and provide protection and subject to consultation with the Travellers involved.

It is fairly poorly drafted ("for the avoidance of doubt" is awful), but it does go beyond student accommodation at the same time. It applies the prohibition on eviction to anyone who is a tenant, even if not covered by the 2004 Act. Basically reverting to the common law understanding. So that will encompass people in dodgy house shares where the landlord was trying to rely on a strict interpretation of "dwelling" in s 4 of the 2004 Act.

It will not, of course, apply to those in a rent a room scenario, as they by definition should not have exclusive possession. I'm not sure if PBP realise the impact of using the word "tenant" in their amendment.

We will also have to see what the Seanad does with it.

the_syco

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/4/eng/ver_a/b04a20dpdf-as-passed-by-de.pdf
Page 7

Interpretation
3. (1) In this Part—
“Act of 2004” means the Residential Tenancies Act 2004;
“emergency period” means—
(a) the period of 3 months commencing on the enactment of this Act, and
(b) such other period (if any) as may be specified by order under section 4.
(2) In this Part—
(a) references to landlord shall be construed as including references to licensor
within the meaning of section 37 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act
2019,
(b) references to tenant shall be construed as including references to licensee within
such meaning, and
(c) references to tenancy shall be construed as including references to licence within
such meaning

Ballso

Oh dear

the_syco

Ap2020 wrote: »

(c) For the avoidance of doubt, all Travellers who are currently resident in any location should not during this crisis be evicted from that location except where movement is required to ameliorate hardship and provide protection and subject to consultation with the Travellers involved.

I wonder if this includes evicting them from locations that they do not rent, and may not be there with the permission of the local authority/land owner?

Ballso

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder if this includes evicting them from locations that they do not rent, and may not be there with the permission of the local authority/land owner?

What other interpretation is there?

Is this for three months or twelve months does anyone know?

Ap2020

The phrase "within such meaning" is vitally important there. It means that you must read it in the terms of s 37 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019, which refers back to s 3(1A) if the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 which is limited in scope to accommodation where students reside (and where the landlord does not).

Samuel T. Cogley

Ballso wrote: »

What other interpretation is there?

Is this for three months or twelve months does anyone know?

3 months, 12 months was voted on but defeated.

Varik

Victor wrote: »

The only thing the constitution prohibits from being retroactive are criminal matters. It doesn't stop the Oireachtas from, say, shoving up the LPT on people who evicted people.

The situation is slight past the "that's unconstitutional" stage if an emergency has been declared. 99% of the constitution can be suspended in an emergency.

It's not limited to criminal law, Murphy -v- Attorney General involved retrospective changes to taxation and the court found such civil changes to violate protected property rights.

ted1

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the banks deduct 3 months rent (or whatever the case) from the LL's mortgage permanently (with associated interest) so they can pass the savings to the tenant? will cost a **** ton but the only feasible way that works.

What about landlords with no bank loan but use the money to live in or support kids in college , or family in a nursing home etc

endacl

Would be fairer in terms of what has been foisted on people in the rent a room scenario to refer to them as homeowners rather than landlords.

Mic 1972

Ap2020 wrote: »

The amendment was amendment 19 last night and is now s 5(7) of the bill before the seanad today:

(7) (a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions in this section, all proposed evictions in all tenancies in the State, including those not covered by the Act of 2004, are prohibited during the operation of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, this section applies to all Local Authority and Approved Housing body dwellings.

(c) For the avoidance of doubt, all Travellers who are currently resident in any location should not during this crisis be evicted from that location except where movement is required to ameliorate hardship and provide protection and subject to consultation with the Travellers involved.

It is fairly poorly drafted ("for the avoidance of doubt" is awful), but it does go beyond student accommodation at the same time. It applies the prohibition on eviction to anyone who is a tenant, even if not covered by the 2004 Act. Basically reverting to the common law understanding. So that will encompass people in dodgy house shares where the landlord was trying to rely on a strict interpretation of "dwelling" in s 4 of the 2004 Act.

It will not, of course, apply to those in a rent a room scenario, as they by definition should not have exclusive possession. I'm not sure if PBP realise the impact of using the word "tenant" in their amendment.

We will also have to see what the Seanad does with it.

7 (a) says all tenancies in the State including those not covered by Act of 2004
How can you say that this will not apply to rent-a-room?