Eviction Ban extended

beauf

Graham wrote: »

I'm seeing determination orders dated end of June being published in the last week.

But when did they sit for those. When did they have the hearing?

Crimsonred

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

They do but the landlord has rented out a house and that house is now the tenants home, landlords cannot go throwing their weight around anymore.

The local residents need to talk to the tenants.

The residents have spoken to the tenants alright, see below from the Examiner.

An elderly resident who lives near a property that has become known as ‘Covid Party House’ described how a young woman outside the house was told to hush but responded by saying, “Turn up the music".

Sadie O’Mahony, of Highfield West, near University College Cork, was giving evidence in the case against the landlord for being responsible for noise as a nuisance. Ms O’Mahony said: “In the last couple of months we have had no sleep whatsoever. We have been in contact with Fachtna O’Reilly over the years but in the last six to eight weeks it is gone really bad.”

She described having her granddaughter staying over last Friday night for the first time since the Covid-19 restrictions lifted and said they were all still awake at 5am on a morning when her daughter had to be at work for 8am.

Ms O’Mahony described another incident where two young women were outside the 'party house'. “One said, ‘We can do what we want’. The other said, ‘The residents would like to sleep'. (The first woman said), ‘Turn up the music.’ And then it got even louder.”

On another occasion, Ms O'Mahony said she heard a young man say through an open window after the gardaí had called to the house, “The shades are gone, we can do what we want.”

Going back to another incident during Rag Week, Ms O’Mahony said that in the same house, there was a party one night and the gardaí came out. “We counted just over 100 people came out of the house,” she testified at Cork District Court today.

From the Residential Tanancies Act 2004 regarding the obligations of tenants.

“behave in a way that is anti-social” means—

(c) engage, persistently, in behaviour that prevents or interferes with the peaceful occupation—

(i) by any other person residing in the dwelling concerned, of that dwelling,

(ii) by any person residing in any other dwelling contained in the property containing the dwelling concerned, of that other dwelling, or

(iii) by any person residing in a dwelling (“neighbourhood dwelling”) in the vicinity of the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling concerned, of that neighbourhood dwelling.

Dav010

So, does not look like eviction ban will/can b extended, the Attorney General has raised doubts about the legality of doing so as the reopening of the economy weakens the public health justification for infringing constitutional property rights. His opinion is a further ban will not withstand a High Court challenge.

Article on front page of Sunday Times.

Elessar

Dav010 wrote: »

So, does not look like eviction ban will/can b extended, the Attorney General has raised doubts about the legality of doing so as the reopening of the economy weakens the public health justification for infringing constitutional property rights. His opinion is a further ban will not withstand a High Court challenge.

Article on front page of Sunday Times.

Good to see the constitution being upheld. I wonder how the AG will see the Green's desire to remove the ability for landlords to evict tenants if they want to sell their property? And/or get it back for themselves or a family member?

The_Conductor

Dav010 wrote: »

So, does not look like eviction ban will/can b extended, the Attorney General has raised doubts about the legality of doing so as the reopening of the economy weakens the public health justification for infringing constitutional property rights. His opinion is a further ban will not withstand a High Court challenge.

Article on front page of Sunday Times.

I have my doubts- as the whole premise of the RPZ legislation is based on the same premise- that is, that it is strictly temporary in nature and not subject to extension. No-one took a challenge to it. No-one wants to be the person to challenge it- as they will be made out to be the devil incarnate in the media.

The_Conductor

Elessar wrote: »

Good to see the constitution being upheld. I wonder how the AG will see the Green's desire to remove the ability for landlords to evict tenants if they want to sell their property? And/or get it back for themselves or a family member?

It would be easier to keep property vacant- and just pay the property tax- maybe visit it at weekends etc. Keep in mind- 63% of all rental property on the market- is owned by landlords who only own a single unit, and 74% is owned by landlords who own 3 or fewer units.

The vast preponderance of residential rental property- is not owned by 'property moguls' or vulture funds or whatever you want to call them- despite what the media would like you to believe.

Dav010

The_Conductor wrote: »

I have my doubts- as the whole premise of the RPZ legislation is based on the same premise- that is, that it is strictly temporary in nature and not subject to extension. No-one took a challenge to it. No-one wants to be the person to challenge it- as they will be made out to be the devil incarnate in the media.

I think the eviction ban poses far greater financial difficulties to LLs and is more likely to be tested by institutional investors than RPZ legislation.

The_Conductor

Dav010 wrote: »

I think the eviction ban poses far greater financial difficulties to LLs and is more likely to be tested by institutional investors than RPZ legislation.

Agree.
And the main reason for this is the sheer number of tenants who have abused to eviction ban to give up paying rent (some claiming they have been laid off- others who were furloughed- simply know how to play the system).
Its a case of too many tenants played the system on this one- the large institutional investors can ignore a few local cases- but we're talking about a whole different scale of an issue here.

The_Conductor

Dav010 wrote: »

I think the eviction ban poses far greater financial difficulties to LLs and is more likely to be tested by institutional investors than RPZ legislation.

On second thoughts- part of the RPZ legislation enables either a tenant or a landlord to trigger a rent review. While there is a limit on upward reviews- there is no such commensurate limits on reductions in rent. If tenants go on a spree of demanding rent reviews- and successfully get significant reductions (which would have to be benchmarked against other properties in the area)- they could get significant reductions in rent- which the landlord would not be entitled to reset at a future point in time (if rents started to increase again).

It depends on what actually transpires- but there could very well be challenges to the RPZ legislation in the works too.

Whether tenants realise it or not- the regulatory regime has been firmly in their favour for many years- if some of the big institutional investors start to hurt- they are faceless entities (mostly) who won't care about bringing about a challenge. Worse case scenario for them- a legal challenge would be tax deductible lol......:(

JimmyVik

The_Conductor wrote: »

On second thoughts- part of the RPZ legislation enables either a tenant or a landlord to trigger a rent review. While there is a limit on upward reviews- there is no such commensurate limits on reductions in rent. If tenants go on a spree of demanding rent reviews- and successfully get significant reductions (which would have to be benchmarked against other properties in the area)- they could get significant reductions in rent- which the landlord would not be entitled to reset at a future point in time (if rents started to increase again).

It depends on what actually transpires- but there could very well be challenges to the RPZ legislation in the works too.

Whether tenants realise it or not- the regulatory regime has been firmly in their favour for many years- if some of the big institutional investors start to hurt- they are faceless entities (mostly) who won't care about bringing about a challenge. Worse case scenario for them- a legal challenge would be tax deductible lol......:(

Those bit institutional investors wont want to rock the boat. They are getting a sweet deal for staying in line and not challenging.

The_Conductor

JimmyVik wrote: »

Those bit institutional investors wont want to rock the boat. They are getting a sweet deal for staying in line and not challenging.

Thats just the thing though- the boat rocking is going to come from their tenants. Up to now- the imperative was to keep their heads down and the income would flow- but now with an increase in supply (albeit not by much as yet)- and no limits on how much rents can fall, but limits on how much they could increase- the ball is no longer in institutional investor's court.

Its not something that is going to happen overnight- rather it could be 12-18 months before the dust starts to settle.

Dav010

JimmyVik wrote: »

Those bit institutional investors wont want to rock the boat. They are getting a sweet deal for staying in line and not challenging.

I’m not so sure Jimmy, investment funds have shareholders and their property business model is based on rental income initially and asset appreciation in the long term. If the ban is extended, more tenants will stop/be unable to continue paying rent, that will be an untenable situation for them. Having an empty unit is bad enough, having non paying tenants being protected from eviction is far worse.

snowgal

The_Conductor wrote: »

Agree.
And the main reason for this is the sheer number of tenants who have abused to eviction ban to give up paying rent (some claiming they have been laid off- others who were furloughed- simply know how to play the system).
Its a case of too many tenants played the system on this one- the large institutional investors can ignore a few local cases- but we're talking about a whole different scale of an issue here.

didn't know there were numbers released on this. Where did you find this info please?

Pkiernan

The_Conductor wrote: »

On second thoughts- part of the RPZ legislation enables either a tenant or a landlord to trigger a rent review. While there is a limit on upward reviews- there is no such commensurate limits on reductions in rent. If tenants go on a spree of demanding rent reviews- and successfully get significant reductions (which would have to be benchmarked against other properties in the area)- they could get significant reductions in rent- which the landlord would not be entitled to reset at a future point in time (if rents started to increase again).

(

I'd love if I could get benchmarked rent for one of my properties!
Can't see my tenants volunteering to me me an additional 85% though!
Not all landlords are greedy dirtbags.

PommieBast

The_Conductor wrote: »

Keep in mind- 63% of all rental property on the market- is owned by landlords who only own a single unit, and 74% is owned by landlords who own 3 or fewer units.

Where these figures from? They look like the percentages for landlords rather than the properties themselves.

JimmyVik

Pkiernan wrote: »

I'd love if I could get benchmarked rent for one of my properties!
Can't see my tenants volunteering to me me an additional 85% though!
Not all landlords are greedy dirtbags.

I work with someone who told me he sold 3 rental properties in Ireland and bought 1 each in the UK and Spain which he rents.
He told me that its was way easier and than renting out the Irish ones.
That was about 2 years ago he told me that. Must ask him how he got on when I see him again.

godtabh

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m not so sure Jimmy, investment funds have shareholders and their property business model is based on rental income initially and asset appreciation in the long term. If the ban is extended, more tenants will stop/be unable to continue paying rent, that will be an untenable situation for them. Having an empty unit is bad enough, having non paying tenants being protected from eviction is far worse.

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

The_Conductor

PommieBast wrote: »

Where these figures from? They look like the percentages for landlords rather than the properties themselves.

RTB annual report. Figures have been fairly static- even the large REITs and Institutional investors- haven't made much of a dint in the numbers. The biggest change over the past 2-3 years has been the inclusion of the Housing Associations in the figures. These have been creatively recorded though- often as individual rather than grouped tenancies. The RTB were asked about it- and undertook to 'ensure the accuracy of statistics' to the then Minister.

The_Conductor

snowgal wrote: »

didn't know there were numbers released on this. Where did you find this info please?

Once again- RTB- in this instance their new Communications and Information Manager (she said she was only appointed 6 months ago in her interview on Drivetime)- Andrea Wesolowszki (please forgive me if I've misspell her name).

PommieBast

The_Conductor wrote: »

RTB annual report. Figures have been fairly static- even the large REITs and Institutional investors- haven't made much of a dint in the numbers. The biggest change over the past 2-3 years has been the inclusion of the Housing Associations in the figures. These have been creatively recorded though- often as individual rather than grouped tenancies. The RTB were asked about it- and undertook to 'ensure the accuracy of statistics' to the then Minister.

I am guessing a lot of those individual holdings are accidental landlords. What amazes me is how many have not joined the stampede for the exit..

PommieBast

JimmyVik wrote: »

I work with someone who told me he sold 3 rental properties in Ireland and bought 1 each in the UK and Spain which he rents.
He told me that its was way easier and than renting out the Irish ones.
That was about 2 years ago he told me that. Must ask him how he got on when I see him again.

My parents rent a few places out in the UK. They tell me they once had to evict someone who was doing stuff like running a business from the property as well as having stopped paying rent. It took bit over 3 months :eek:

Claw Hammer

PommieBast wrote: »

My parents rent a few places out in the UK. They tell me they once had to evict someone who was doing stuff like running a business from the property as well as having stopped paying rent. It took bit over 3 months :eek:

This is not the UK. We left almost 100 years ago.

perfectkama

Claw Hammer wrote: »

This is not the UK. We left almost 100 years ago.

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

The_Conductor

PommieBast wrote: »

I am guessing a lot of those individual holdings are accidental landlords. What amazes me is how many have not joined the stampede for the exit..

Lots of landlords have motivations which are not purely business- for example: letting a property (or 2) has been a traditional way for many people to supplement their pension, for others- buying a rental property was a way of ensuring that their children had/have somewhere to live when they go to college- and for others- apparently almost 34.5k of them- it is the sole property they own and they no longer live in Ireland- or if they do, they are renting elsewhere.

Yes- there are lots of 'accidental landlords' out there- but also there are significant numbers of landlords for whom letting property is serving another purpose altogether- many of whom intend to reclaim the property for their own use at a future point in time.

Claw Hammer

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

What goes on over there is completely irrelevant to the law here.

The_Conductor

PommieBast wrote: »

My parents rent a few places out in the UK. They tell me they once had to evict someone who was doing stuff like running a business from the property as well as having stopped paying rent. It took bit over 3 months :eek:

Versus- a Garda told me of a house in Corduff in Blanchardstown that was cooking small quantities of Meth. It took the landlord over 2 years to evict the tenants- during which time the tenant paid no rent (and had their HAP stopped- as they also stopped paying their portion of the rent to Fingal Co. Co.)

In Ireland- paying your rent, paying your mortgage, paying your debts- are all viewed as optional things- and the big bad person chasing you- is somehow at fault.

The whole concept of personal responsibility in Ireland- is seriously twisted.

perfectkama

oh yeah the all hard left leaning populism laws

PommieBast

Claw Hammer wrote: »

This is not the UK. We left almost 100 years ago.

I know. It was a remark on how fast evictions are over there..

redarmyblues

The costs of non payment of rent, overholding, thrashing by tenants in the particular are ultimately borne by all other tenants in general. Anybody I knew back in the day who was involved with Threshold had a council house, is there a connection here?

PHG

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

How do you mean less risk?