Eviction Ban extended

The_Conductor

brisan wrote: »

Secondly will the RTB look for proof that the tenant is financially affected or will they just take them at their word ie self declaration

The tenant lodges a self declaration with the RTB.
The tenancy is registered with the RTB under the tenant's RSI number.
Revenue validate RSI information from the RTB for both tenants and landlords (and use it to investigate suspicious tax returns from landlords among other things). Revenue also update their records overnight with a feed from DSP (who also update feeds on a nightly basis with other government departments- so for example if someone was receiving a grant or payment from another Department- it would be fed back to Revenue).
Revenue can give a straight yes/no to the RTB - is an applicant in receipt of a covid related payment from DSP (or whatever that Department are called now)- and in cases of doubt- can investigate on a case by case basis.

So- it boils down to- there is information sharing between 1) All government Departments, 2) Revenue and 3) agencies- such as the RTB. They have the mechanisms in place to investigate any suspect claims- by referring them to Revenue- who have a section ready to go to investigate these claims (they're already dealing with the residential tenancy letting sector- this will be an additinoal duty for them).

If you get caught- there is a question mark over what level of punishment you are subject to- but its a fine of up to 12k and/or up to 6 months in prison, for making a false declaration.

The_Conductor

Manion wrote: »

I've looked back through the thread but cannot find it, is there a link somewhere outlining the responsibilities of tenants and landlords under the new covid rules and what those rules are? I don't doubt what you're saying at all but I'm struggling to find the primary sources.

The Act itself


And the guidance document from the Department

It is expected there will be an additional SI on or before the afternoon of Friday 31st, to formally legislate for the Aug 1st and onwards situation- it will be available to download immediately once its signed.

The_Conductor

Pkiernan wrote: »

Unfortunately only scroungers and dirtbags qualify for legal aid.
The cost of Court action against the government makes this almost impossible.

Thats not entirely fair.
Lots of people legitimately claim and are granted legal aid.
Some are granted their costs in full- others only partially, they are assessed after the fact, and at the discretion of the judge.

Sure- the availability of legal aid is regularly abused- but just because its a support that is known for being abused, does not mean everyone who uses it, is doing so in an unfair manner.

The_Conductor

david72jenkins wrote: »

The bill can be interpreted as ambiguous in places, does the passing of the bill mean the end to the 'emergency measures'?

With respect to self declaration, I believe it will be a criminal offence to make a false declaration.

Emergencies measures- can be formalised in a bill.
Keep in mind the whole concept of RPZs- are an emergency measure- with a defined 4 year lifespan.

There isn't a yes/no answer- but in the context of a government desperately pursuing popular measures- its practically a given that few thoughts will be given to any measure, save those that are particularly odious to property rights as broadly described in the constitution.

david72jenkins

The RTB refers to EMERGENCY MEASURES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST (COVID-19) ACT 2020 and time extensions to that act.

Guess the question I was attempting to ask was that if the Residential Tenancies and Valuation Bill 2020 currently working its way through the Dail (being debated tomorrow) is passed will that supersede EMERGENCY MEASURES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST (COVID-19) ACT 2020?

mel123

The_Conductor wrote: »

The tenant lodges a self declaration with the RTB.
The tenancy is registered with the RTB under the tenant's RSI number.
Revenue validate RSI information from the RTB for both tenants and landlords (and use it to investigate suspicious tax returns from landlords among other things). Revenue also update their records overnight with a feed from DSP (who also update feeds on a nightly basis with other government departments- so for example if someone was receiving a grant or payment from another Department- it would be fed back to Revenue).
Revenue can give a straight yes/no to the RTB - is an applicant in receipt of a covid related payment from DSP (or whatever that Department are called now)- and in cases of doubt- can investigate on a case by case basis.

So- it boils down to- there is information sharing between 1) All government Departments, 2) Revenue and 3) agencies- such as the RTB. They have the mechanisms in place to investigate any suspect claims- by referring them to Revenue- who have a section ready to go to investigate these claims (they're already dealing with the residential tenancy letting sector- this will be an additinoal duty for them).

If you get caught- there is a question mark over what level of punishment you are subject to- but its a fine of up to 12k and/or up to 6 months in prison, for making a false declaration.

What does financially effected mean?
Tenant has lost their job because of Covid, but HAP is paying their rent. Does this constitute as financially effected.

Conductor i cant make any sense of it, im just getting snippets here and there, so sorry for the direct question to you, but you seem to have a good understanding. Thanks in advance.

The_Conductor

david72jenkins wrote: »

The RTB refers to EMERGENCY MEASURES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST (COVID-19) ACT 2020 and time extensions to that act.

Guess the question I was attempting to ask was that if the Residential Tenancies and Valuation Bill 2020 currently working its way through the Dail (being debated tomorrow) is passed will that supersede EMERGENCY MEASURES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST (COVID-19) ACT 2020?

From listening to statements from the Minister in the media- the answer is, yes, it will supercede it, as the emergency measures, as they are currently legislated, would likely fall foul of a constitutional challenge, were one to be taken.

Keep in mind- you have all the REITs caught up in this too- they have the firepower to bring to bear on something that might negatively effect them- its not Mr. Murphy down the street with 3 rental properties who would challege it.

The_Conductor

mel123 wrote: »

What does financially effected mean?
Tenant has lost their job because of Covid, but HAP is paying their rent. Does this constitute as financially effected.

Conductor i cant make any sense of it, im just getting snippets here and there, so sorry for the direct question to you, but you seem to have a good understanding. Thanks in advance.

According to the Minister- a tenant would have to show that they are in receipt of a payment from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection now, that they were not in receipt of immediately preceding the Covid-19 shutdown.

So its any DEASP payment that you now get that you did not get before the lockdown that counts.

If you have DEASP payments- but had them before the lockdown- it doesn't count.

david72jenkins

Apologies for bombarding with questions but...If the tenant receives DEASP payments but there is no rent arrears (not HAP) are the tenants subject to the January 11th notice as described in the new bill, I thought it only applied to tenants in arrears?

Countryboy2018

The_Conductor wrote: »

According to the Minister- a tenant would have to show that they are in receipt of a payment from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection now, that they were not in receipt of immediately preceding the Covid-19 shutdown.

So its any DEASP payment that you now get that you did not get before the lockdown that counts.

If you have DEASP payments- but had them before the lockdown- it doesn't count.

What if a Determination order has been already issued by rtb and tenant is to vacate on 1st August,
Tenant is in receipt of HAP and has been prior to covid,
Does this tenant still have to vacate on 1st August?

The_Conductor

david72jenkins wrote: »

Apologies for bombarding with questions but...If the tenant receives DEASP payments but there is no rent arrears (not HAP) are the tenants subject to the January 11th notice as described in the new bill, I thought it only applied to tenants in arrears?

I'm not sure what the precise wording will be- however, it is my understanding that the tenant self declares a 'financial hardship as a result of Covid' and is in receipt of a payment from DEASP that they did not previously have. I do not believe they have to have built up arrears- hwoever, if they are experiencing a financial hardship- they should be applying for HAP- and the landlord has to facilitate this (though of course it is not the landlord's duty to inform the tenant of their entitlements).

Pkiernan

The Minster says he has balanced tenants protection with property owners rights.

I'm not seeing anything at all for property owners here.

The_Conductor

Countryboy2018 wrote: »

What if a Determination order has been already issued by rtb and tenant is to vacate on 1st August,
Tenant is in receipt of HAP and has been prior to covid,
Does this tenant still have to vacate on 1st August?

Then the tenant is not in receipt of a new payment from DEASP, and the terms of the Determination Order stand (though if the tenant chooses to overhold and play mindgames with the RTB and the landlord- they could potentially stretch things out for > 2 years..........

The_Conductor

Pkiernan wrote: »

The Minster says he has balanced tenants protection with property owners rights.

I'm not seeing anything at all for property owners here.

Of course there isn't anything for property owners- but the Minister is playing to an audience- and is paying lipservice to being a good guy who can balance the competing rights of tenants and landlords.

If the Minister gave anything to landlords- he would be skewered and lampooned in the media.

All that is in it for landlords- is if their tenant is not on the Covid payment- or any other DEASP disbursement that they weren't on previously- the landlord can now sell the property- where heretofore, they could not.

Any sane landlords- will read the writing on the wall- and sell up. Even some REITs are beginning to drip units onto local markets (look at some of the Cairn developments in West Dublin/North Kildare beginning to feature secondhand units..........)

david72jenkins

The language in the Residential Tenancies and Valuation Bill 2020 specifically mentions arrears, not wishing to appear to question a view on a subject I am no expert in but that does seem..well....specific?

Countryboy2018

The_Conductor wrote: »

Then the tenant is not in receipt of a new payment from DEASP, and the terms of the Determination Order stand (though if the tenant chooses to overhold and play mindgames with the RTB and the landlord- they could potentially stretch things out for > 2 years..........

This tenant was issued a notice in October 2019
The Determination order was only sent out last week,
So this tenant doesn’t need extra time?
As all is said in the Determination order is that tenant must vacate on or before 1st August or within 21 days when the ban on eviction is lifted.
So on the 1st August I can start getting it enforced through the district court?
Thanks in advance

The_Conductor

Countryboy2018 wrote: »

This tenant was issued a notice in October 2019
The Determination order was only sent out last week,
So this tenant doesn’t need extra time?
As all is said in the Determination order is that tenant must vacate on or before 1st August or within 21 days when the ban on eviction is lifted.
So on the 1st August I can start getting it enforced through the district court?
Thanks in advance

My reading of the wording (from your post)- is that they have until the 21st of August- as the ban on evictions ceases on the 1st of August (unless of course they qualify for the extension until the 1st Jan)? This is one of those cases where you need to look very precisely at the wording.

Countryboy2018

The_Conductor wrote: »

My reading of the wording (from your post)- is that they have until the 21st of August- as the ban on evictions ceases on the 1st of August (unless of course they qualify for the extension until the 1st Jan)? This is one of those cases where you need to look very precisely at the wording.

But would this tenant qualify for the extension until the 1st Jan as this tenant is in receipt of HAP prior to the covid and is not in arrears?

The_Conductor

david72jenkins wrote: »

The language in the Residential Tenancies and Valuation Bill 2020 specifically mentions arrears, not wishing to appear to question a view on a subject I am no expert in but that does seem..well....specific?

The Act applies to a number of different categories.

1. The tenant has to serve official written notice on the RTB and his/her landlord that they are under financial distress relating to Covid.

2. Because of this financial distress they are unable to meet their requirement to pay their rent (proof may be sought by the Board- and a false declaration is subject to a Cat B fine and/or up to 6 months imprisonment)

3. The person at (1) and (2) must:

(a) be subject to a public health order (under 2005 Public Health legislation)
or
(b) belong to a category listed under Section 40 of the 2005 Act

and

(c) been in receipt of (or entitled to but not claiming) the covid wage subsidy at any time between the 9th March 2020 and 10th Jan 2021
or
(d) paid a supplementary welfare allowance by DEASP to alleviate financial hardship resulting from Covid as a result of unemployment through Covid.
or
(e) any other DEASP payment deemed appropriate by the government to prevent the spread of Covid
or
(f) any other payment of public money to prevent or alleviate hardship to prevent the spread or risk thereof of Covid


A termination to be served under this order must have a commencement date of at least the 11th January 2021

Tenancy tribunals can take place (including for non-payment of rent or arrears) but shall not have effect until at least 10th Jan 2021

etc etc

Keep in mind this is just the first laying of the bill before the house- its entirely possible/probable it'll be amended, possibly significantly.

Copy of the bill, as laid before the Dáil, attached for anyone who likes to read legislation.

The_Conductor

Countryboy2018 wrote: »

But would this tenant qualify for the extension until the 1st Jan as this tenant is in receipt of HAP prior to the covid and is not in arrears?

They could do- if they meet alternate criteria as prescribed in the Act (see my previous post for a list (which may be changed in the final version of the Act)).

Also- its the 10th Jan 2021 - not the 1st Jan.

The fact that they qualified for HAP before the crisis- means they can't use receipt of HAP as their financial measure under the Act- it would have to be a different financial payment (or even the wage subsidy).

Blut2

The_Conductor wrote: »

According to the Minister- a tenant would have to show that they are in receipt of a payment from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection now, that they were not in receipt of immediately preceding the Covid-19 shutdown.

So its any DEASP payment that you now get that you did not get before the lockdown that counts.

If you have DEASP payments- but had them before the lockdown- it doesn't count.

According to figures from 10 days ago there are currently about:

345,000 on the Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP)
220,000 on the live register/"normal" dole
405,000 Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS)

For a total of 970,000 people.

There were approx 150k on social welfare pre corona I believe, which would mean there are now about 800,000 people who effectively can't be served eviction notice until January 1st? There are going to be a lot of very very unhappy landlords.

david72jenkins

I understood this to be the pertinent section....

This section applies to a notice of termination served on a tenant during the emergency period that cites as a reason for the termination concerned the failure by the tenant to pay an amount of rent due in respect of the tenancy of a dwelling.


This was the view of my TD also with the caveat that he received the bill at 11.30 on Friday morning and I spoke with him at 16.45.

Am I missing something?

The_Conductor

Blut2 wrote: »

For a total of 970,000 people.

There were approx 150k on social welfare pre corona I believe, which would mean there are now about 800,000 people who effectively can't be served eviction notice until January 1st? There are going to be a lot of very very unhappy landlords.

1. They have to serve a notice of financial hardship to the RTB and their landlord (format yet to be determined).
2. They can't count payments they were already in receipt of- towards their qualifying financial assistance.
3. Its the 10th Jan 2021- not the 1st Jan

4. All of this is subject to revision- its only gotten its first reading in the Houses of the Oireachtas so far (but is expected to be brought fully through all the steps- before 8PM on Friday).

5. There would be a lynch mob on the street for the Minister if he gave anything whatsoever to landlords.

The_Conductor

david72jenkins wrote: »

I understood this to be the pertinent section....

This section applies to a notice of termination served on a tenant during the emergency period that cites as a reason for the termination concerned the failure by the tenant to pay an amount of rent due in respect of the tenancy of a dwelling.


This was the view of my TD also with the caveat that he received the bill at 11.30 on Friday morning and I spoke with him at 16.45.

Am I missing something?

Its only the first version of the Act- and its subject to revision- however, they have promised that its not only rent arrears that are covered in it.

I attached the copy from last Friday to a post an hour ago or so.

Blut2

The_Conductor wrote: »

1. They have to serve a notice of financial hardship to the RTB and their landlord (format yet to be determined).
2. They can't count payments they were already in receipt of- towards their qualifying financial assistance.
3. Its the 10th Jan 2021- not the 1st Jan

4. All of this is subject to revision- its only gotten its first reading in the Houses of the Oireachtas so far (but is expected to be brought fully through all the steps- before 8PM on Friday).

5. There would be a lynch mob on the street for the Minister if he gave anything whatsoever to landlords.

10th of January, sorry my bad. Re: "2" yes thats why I subtracted the people previously on the dole to get the figure of 800k eviction exempt for people only newly on DEASP payments since mid-March. Which is still a phenomenally high figure - we only had 2.3million working adults pre-corona, so over 1/3rd of the working population (from which by far the majority of renters comes from) is now going to be eviction exempt.

I agree doing anything for landlords would be terrible optics. And am usually in favour of more pro-tenant policies. But effectively removing the right of eviction for almost 6 months seems hugely heavy handed for anyone with problem tenants.

david72jenkins

I believe the copy you attached is one I reviewed on Friday evening.

When you say "they have promised that its not only rent arrears that are covered in it" may ask you 'they' are?

Do you believe there will need to be additional text added to the current bill to encompass the 'categories' you have described previously?

The_Conductor

Blut2 wrote: »

I agree doing anything for landlords would be terrible optics. And am usually in favour of more pro-tenant policies. But effectively removing the right of eviction for almost 6 months seems hugely heavy handed for anyone with problem tenants.

I was thinking about that Cork landlord Fachtna O’Reilly, and all the students terrorising whole areas of Highfield Avenue / Magazine Road......... All it takes is one of the students to have had a part time job- and been laid off because of Covid- to stop paying the rent- and he is completely and utterly screwed- as are the residents in the area.

the_syco

The Student wrote: »

If someone is affected by covid and the eviction ban is in force is there anything for the landlord if tenants underpay the rent?

IMO, you either pay the rent, or you don't pay the rent. If you don't pay the rent, the LL may send a rent arrears notice, and if it's not paid, start eviction proceedings.

The_Conductor wrote: »

If you get caught- there is a question mark over what level of punishment you are subject to- but its a fine of up to 12k and/or up to 6 months in prison, for making a false declaration.

I wonder will they have any more luck getting blood from a stone?

eleventh

If they're going down this road of self-declaring, it should be open to anyone, including those not receiving a covid payment.
Many have been affected that were receiving another payment such as their hopes of sitting exams or securing a job being affected.

It seems a very broad sweep. Many receiving a covid payment may qualify on paper, but aren't worse off now than they were pre-covid.

If they want to be fair, it should be means-tested properly, or just lift the ban for everyone.

redarmyblues

Would it make any sense to issue a notice to quit to allow for a safe first thing Saturday, that way if there is a constitutional challenge that succeeds, the NTQ might be deemed valid and you would be one of the first to market with your property?