Eviction Ban extended

perfectkama

less tenant over holding and non payment of rent, easier to evict no long notice periods better attitude to renting
stronger LLs organization lighter
Council poll tax paid by tenant could you imagine if that was here?.

PHG

PHG wrote: »

How do you mean less risk?

Easier to get rid of bad/non paying tenants which is a massive risk for a LL in Ireland.

The_Conductor

perfectkama wrote: »

less tenant over over holding and non payment of rent, easier to evict no long notice periods better attitude to renting
stronger LLs organization.

The Irish Landlords association were pretty much shutdown over competition concerns- how dare they make representations on behalf of landlords, its evidence of collusion in the market.........

Honestly- you couldn't make it up.

The_Conductor

PHG wrote: »

How do you mean less risk?

The risk of having a tenant overhold for up to two years, while not paying rent, while they play the system- and eventually leave, and you have no manner or means of getting a penny out of them?

PSOC_2020

godtabh wrote: »

How does an eviction ban result in tenants unable to pay rent? It’s more likely to result in tenants not paying rent (whether they can or can’t afford it) because there is no consequences

There is no proper representation for LLs. IPOA doesn't cut it. Seems extraordinary just how much matters have turned against LLs. Why would you bother?

DubCount

PHG wrote: »

How do you mean less risk?

In England, 3 months rent arears is automatic grounds for eviction. No prolonged messing with RTB and endless appeals and a long legal process. Quick process through the County Court and then get the bailiffs if needed. The tenant can be sued for meaningful recouping of unpaid rent and costs. Best of all, the local Council takes responsibility for housing tenants who become homeless as a result of an eviction. Then there are no 4% caps on rent increases. There is no HAP mess. They dont change rental rules every couple of months.

All this means the risk is far lower. The UK falls firmly on the side that the private rental market is a business, and the government deals with the cant pay/wont pay candidates. They dont try to push the responsibility for avoiding homelessness onto private landlords.

godtabh

PSOC_2020 wrote: »

There is no proper representation for LLs. IPOA doesn't cut it. Seems extraordinary just how much matters have turned against LLs. Why would you bother?

If I could I’d be gone. Apartment still in NE and likely to remain like that for a while.

I’ve been lucky. Only one bad tenant in 12 years. Cost me c. €4K in damage

FAILSAFE 00

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Yup, the landlord can do very little. I sympathise with the residents but their time might be better spent soundproofing their homes or going vigilante against the students, or petitioning their TDs

I've been following it since its an interesting catch 22 for the landlord.

From said case.


Judge Kelleher said, “I will adjourn it for one week for him to take steps. I don’t want to catch him on the hop. I want no noise this week. I find the facts proved. It is up to him to make all the running. I cannot force him to make orders to quit.”

Its laughable , whats the LL supposed to do. Show up like Dirty Harry with a magnum and start blowing students away.

The LL cannot do anything. All landlord rights have been completely obliterated over the last few years. People would rather diffuse bombs in a minefield than be a landlord in Ireland at this stage.

Its all arse ways. The students should be the ones in the court.

Mad_maxx

DubCount wrote: »

In England, 3 months rent arears is automatic grounds for eviction. No prolonged messing with RTB and endless appeals and a long legal process. Quick process through the County Court and then get the bailiffs if needed. The tenant can be sued for meaningful recouping of unpaid rent and costs. Best of all, the local Council takes responsibility for housing tenants who become homeless as a result of an eviction. Then there are no 4% caps on rent increases. There is no HAP mess. They dont change rental rules every couple of months.

All this means the risk is far lower. The UK falls firmly on the side that the private rental market is a business, and the government deals with the cant pay/wont pay candidates. They dont try to push the responsibility for avoiding homelessness onto private landlords.

The UK is far less socialist than us

Crimsonred

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I've been following it since its an interesting catch 22 for the landlord.

From said case.


Judge Kelleher said, “I will adjourn it for one week for him to take steps. I don’t want to catch him on the hop. I want no noise this week. I find the facts proved. It is up to him to make all the running. I cannot force him to make orders to quit.”

Its laughable , whats the LL supposed to do. Show up like Dirty Harry with a magnum and start blowing students away.

The LL cannot do anything. All landlord rights have been completely obliterated over the last few years. People would rather diffuse bombs in a minefield than be a landlord in Ireland at this stage.

Its all arse ways. The students should be the ones in the court.

What's the landlord supposed to do? Maybe give due consideration to locals when deciding who to put into his properties for a start.

In the area around UCC some landlords rent out their houses to students from September to May at a premium price, then rent out the same properties at a cheaper rate from June to the end of August to whoever they can get to take short term lets.

These landlords are motivated by pure greed, this year the fact that students couldn't go abroad for the summer meant that many were tempted to come back to the area around UCC for the summer, despite college being closed and in many cases despite not having work in the city. This was inevitably going to lead to problems for local residents who have to deal with sporadic anti-social behaviour during college term as it is.

From what I can see not many landlords are turfing out students who are acting up, the ban on evictions is being used as cover for leaving the tenants in situ until the end of August.

Graham

Crimsonred wrote: »

not many landlords are turfing out students who are acting up, the ban on evictions is being used as cover for leaving the tenants in situ until the end of August.

Because a landlords other options are......

Crimsonred

Graham wrote: »

Because a landlords other options are......

Well, regarding the case in Cirk the judge clearly feels that O'Reilly has options, we will know more on Friday.

One presumes that judge Olann Kelliher knows the law as do O'Reilly's legal team.

Yellow_Fern

Crimsonred wrote: »

What's the landlord supposed to do? Maybe give due consideration to locals when deciding who to put into his properties for a start.

In the area around UCC some landlords rent out their houses to students from September to May at a premium price, then rent out the same properties at a cheaper rate from June to the end of August to whoever they can get to take short term lets.

These landlords are motivated by pure greed, this year the fact that students couldn't go abroad for the summer meant that many were tempted to come back to the area around UCC for the summer, despite college being closed and in many cases despite not having work in the city. This was inevitably going to lead to problems for local residents who have to deal with sporadic anti-social behaviour during college term as it is.

From what I can see not many landlords are turfing out students who are acting up, the ban on evictions is being used as cover for leaving the tenants in situ until the end of August.

People who come to cities for the summer term lets can be loud too. I dont get your your point? Should they have tried to keep the housing empty? Housing isnt there to be empty.

Crimsonred

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

People who come to cities for the summer term lets can be loud too. I dont get your your point? Should they have tried to keep the housing empty? Housing isnt there to be empty.

These landlords are sweating the assets in question. I've already explained how they operate.

Some of these houses have been converted from family homes into houses that can hold upto 9 students. Imagine living next door to that.

Topgear on Dave

Crimsonred wrote: »

From what I can see not many landlords are turfing out students who are acting up, the ban on evictions is being used as cover for leaving the tenants in situ until the end of August.

LLs can't go tossing people in the street just because the neighbours don't like them.

Crimsonred

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

LLs can't go tossing people in the street just because the neighbours don't like them.

These 17-20 year old "tenants" have moved out of home for the summer to party in the environs of UCC, many of them are from Cork city. I wouldn't waste any sympathy on them.

Yellow_Fern

Crimsonred wrote: »

These landlords are sweating the assets in question. I've already explained how they operate.

Some of these houses have been converted from family homes into houses that can hold upto 9 students. Imagine living next door to that.

Some of these houses are immediately adjacent to UCC or nearby. What is wrong with converting houses to cater to students? They are immediately by Munsters only university. People with low tolerance for noise should not have moved beside UCC. Its been there for 175 years.

Crimsonred

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Some of these houses are immediately adjacent to UCC or nearby. What is wrong with converting houses to cater to students? They are immediately by Munsters only university. People with low tolerance for noise should not have moved beside UCC. Its been there for 175 years.

The area was originally residential, over time student lets have taken over and the remaining residents who are holding out are in many cases to old to consider moving, they are in a bind.

Nobody in their right mind would move into the area now obviously.

fran38

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Some of these houses are immediately adjacent to UCC or nearby. What is wrong with converting houses to cater to students? They are immediately by Munsters only university. People with low tolerance for noise should not have moved beside UCC. Its been there for 175 years.

You'd want to google that little fact.

Pkiernan

Crimsonred wrote: »

What's the landlord supposed to do? Maybe give due consideration to locals when deciding who to put into his properties for a start.

In the area around UCC some landlords rent out their houses to students from September to May at a premium price, then rent out the same properties at a cheaper rate from June to the end of August to whoever they can get to take short term lets.

These landlords are motivated by pure greed, this year the fact that students couldn't go abroad for the summer meant that many were tempted to come back to the area around UCC for the summer, despite college being closed and in many cases despite not having work in the city. This was inevitably going to lead to problems for local residents who have to deal with sporadic anti-social behaviour during college term as it is.

From what I can see not many landlords are turfing out students who are acting up, the ban on evictions is being used as cover for leaving the tenants in situ until the end of August.

This backwards looking post is irrelevant.
What can the LL do legally to remove these tenants?

JimmyVik

perfectkama wrote: »

Easy, lots of LLs who exited the irish market have bought into the uk "me included" there's less risk lower costs and a great exchange rate

I was seriously thinking of buying rental property in Ireland the last few years, but the more I researched it and weighed up the pros and cons the more I decided Irish rentals are not the best for my investment.
I have now started to look at the UK. But I wont make any moves anywhere until this whole virus thing shakes out.

Graham

Crimsonred wrote: »

Well, regarding the case in Cirk the judge clearly feels that O'Reilly has options, we will know more on Friday.

One presumes that judge Olann Kelliher knows the law as do O'Reilly's legal team.

While a landlord has a responsibility to do something, their options are fairly limited

A landlord can have a word.
Send a strongly worded letter.
Open a dispute with the RTB.

What a landlord can't do is go 'turfing tenants out' (assuming they are tenants) without going through the (lengthy) RTB process. Even then, who knows how any type of eviction would be an option under the emergency legislation.

brisan

The_Conductor wrote: »

The Irish Landlords association were pretty much shutdown over competition concerns- how dare they make representations on behalf of landlords, its evidence of collusion in the market.........

Honestly- you couldn't make it up.

Have people considered why the RTB was set up.
Why the law now seems to favour the tenant over the landlord
Why landlords are struggling
Think back to the 60s,-00s
Extremely bad landlords )who were the majority ) are the cause of today's issues.
Its one of the reasons we got out of rental properties .
We were starting to pay for the sins of the previous generation of landlords
Still a few bad landlords about

perfectkama

rubbish post surprised you left out a famine ref

Graham

Graham wrote: »

While a landlord has a responsibility to do something, their options are fairly limited

A landlord can have a word.
Send a strongly worded letter.
Open a dispute with the RTB.

What a landlord can't do is go 'turfing tenants out' (assuming they are tenants) without going through the (lengthy) RTB process. Even then, who knows how any type of eviction would be an option under the emergency legislation.

Part of me thinks there is enough of a head of steam behind this now that if the LL did boot them out that he would have a fighting chance in winning a case, if not at the rtb but on appeal in the courts who appear very behind the residents.

It could be a very important precedent actually if a LL could win a case for booting people out.

brisan

Ramon Some Permit wrote: »

Part of me thinks there is enough of a head of steam behind this now that if the LL did boot them out that he would have a fighting chance in winning a case, if not at the rtb but on appeal in the courts who appear very behind the residents.

It could be a very important precedent actually if a LL could win a case for booting people out.

Legally he cant
While morally he should and no one would object except RTB and Threshold the law takes precedence over morality,
Too many cases where bad tenants have not been evicted ,some very high profile and still the law took its time

Graham

Ramon Some Permit wrote: »

Part of me thinks there is enough of a head of steam behind this now that if the LL did boot them out that he would have a fighting chance in winning a case, if not at the rtb but on appeal in the courts who appear very behind the residents.

It could be a very important precedent actually if a LL could win a case for booting people out.

I don't see how the RTB could decide to ignore the law. Do they have discretion to do that?

Same with the Courts.

Is there a provision anywhere for 'justified' illegal eviction?

Best legal hope I can see is the RTB fast track a case based on antisocial behaviour.

perfectkama

when you have banned evictions together with RTB protenant rules it means tenant can do what they like even more than a homeowner resident, sorry for the resident suffering maybe they should have got there local TD involved before the court action
SF, Greens, PBP and Threshold all want a permanent ban on evictions if they voted for these they deserve it.

PHG

Thanks for the replies to my previous question.

With regards to the UK market (I know a little off topic), I assume it is a 25% deposit for a property?

The reason i ask is, I am considering moving to London with my work (Hertfordshire area and buying a property on my own for 350k-400kGBP) in 18months ish. Currently paid in Ireland so was tempted to buy a property here instead of renting (I have family to look after it should I leave) and rent out the other room while in Ireland. I have considered buying in UK before as I have a lot of family there, the LL advantages pointed out above are good to know too.

Crimsonred

Pkiernan wrote: »

This backwards looking post is irrelevant.
What can the LL do legally to remove these tenants?

The landlords in this area will try and brazen it out until the end of August and use the current restrictions as cover to leave troublesome tenants in situ.

Throwing them out would mean a loss of revenue for the poor landlords and we can't have that now, can we?