Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Blanket Ban on Evictions during the Emergency Period - Random discussion

  • 05-08-2022 11:59am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 15 just_a_gurl


    So, during the pandemic changes were made to the RTA.

    Namely the ban on evictions:

    5. (1) (a) A landlord shall not serve a notice of termination in relation to the tenancy of a dwelling during the emergency period.


    (b) A tenant who, but for the operation of subsection (1), would not acquire any rights under Part 4 of the Act of 2004 shall not, by virtue of such operation, acquire such rights.

    Notice though that it only says Landlords shall not serve a notice...does that mean that a tenant still could?

    And effectively that a tenant could walk out of a property & leave the landlord trying to find alternative tenants? That doesn't really seem fair does it?

    Fine the tenants right to Part 4 were suspended but...if they were only in the place 5 months, effectively they could walk out with 28 days notice...so although their security re having somewhere to live was protected by the Act (Landlord couldn't serve them notice) - where was the landlord's security re rental income during the pandemic's emergency period?


    Discuss!!



Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 36,054 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    what is your opinion?



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 just_a_gurl


    honestly - I think the tenant was slightly better protected than the landlord when this amendment was brought in - but that is only my personal opinion & interpretation of this section in The Act

    Arguably if the landlord could put up a good case to the RTB they might be allowed to retain at least some of the deposit to recoup their losses until they had a new tenant in place...but once again the requirement would be on the landlord to show that they made all reasonable efforts to refill the tenancy & shur that's widely open to interpretation & would be dependent on who was adjudicating...it just seems a tad unbalanced to me

    But I am no expert...just a wannabe critical thinker!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 36,054 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    the deposit is to cover any damages to the property not a source of extra profit for the landlord.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 just_a_gurl


    Let's not turn this into a deposit retention thread - back to the actual discussion re the Ban on Evictions & why LLs were prohibited from Serving Termination Notices within the Emergency Periods but Tenants were not & was it actually fair to both sides



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 just_a_gurl


    .Duplicate post



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 36,054 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    it wasn't intended to be fair to both sides. it was intended to protect tenants during an unprecedented pandemic. the costs to landlords was minor.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 just_a_gurl


    Is the purpose of the law not to protect the interest of both parties & give them equality?

    All citizens shall be held equal before the law (Article 40.1 of the Constitution). This means that the State cannot unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminate between citizens. 

    Also, rent is not profit - it is income, deposits are not profit either if legally withheld

    If you earn a wage do you consider that wage to be profit or income which less your living expenses leaves you either in the red or the black...

    You assume Tenants required more protection - based on what?

    And why would LLs not also require protection during an unprecedented pandemic?

    When you say the costs to LLs was minor - please elaborate - are you assuming a LL would not perhaps have a mortgage to pay on the property?

    Even if a house is temporarily vacant it is still insured, property tax is still due, the electricity & gas are still connected...who pays that when the tenant is gone & the house potentially vacant, probably the landlord



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭ timmyntc


    the costs to landlords was minor.

    What makes you say that? A landlord runs a business and signs contracts with tenants - they provide the service of a house in exchange for money from the tenant. If the tenant broke that contract by leaving early, why should the landlord not be entitled to compensation for breach of contract?



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭ Strumms


    What if the son of a landlord was returning home from living abroad to take up a new job ?

    surly the landlord is within their rights to give the current tenant a responsible and legal notice requirement, say 90 days…..



  • Registered Users Posts: 36,054 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    we have had undersupply in the rental market for how long now?

    why should the landlord not be entitled to compensation for breach of contract?

    what breach of contract if statutory notice is given?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15 just_a_gurl


    Now in 2022 yes provided that LL follows the letter of the law & correctly serves the Written Termination Notice with all the other required documentation...Statutory Declaration, name of family member it is required for & how long they require it etc. & let the tenant know that if it becomes available again within 12months (I think) they will be offered it back etc.


    BUT back during the pandemic there were 3 emergency periods that effectively said No you must wait until the emergency period ends before serving notice...and even if you did that and served notice in July, August or Sept & up until the start of the next emergency period in Oct, the clock counting the Notice Term was effectively paused until the next emergency period ended.

    So, if you gave someone 90 days on August 31 2020 (that was the requirement I think back then for any tenancies of 6months to a yr in duration) & the next emergency period started on 22nd Oct 2020 that was effectively only 53 days of the 90, the tenant could then stay in the property until that emergency period ended on the 01/12/2020 & then start the clock again on the final 37 days of their notice...& don't forget the 3rd emergency period commenced on 31/12/2020 & continued until 12/04/2021...so in that example the new termination date would have been in & around the 20/04/2021 give or take a day giving me leeway for trying to do the math in my head.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 just_a_gurl


    The undersupply in the rental market has many contributory factors - Taxation, Legislation & a very negative public perception towards LLs - I fear (IMO only) are partially to blame for this. If you compare the RTB reports on the market for the last number of years it will prove that more & more LLs are voluntarily leaving the market place. Something must be done to keep LLs in the business of being a landlord because quite frankly if someone gave me a house in the morning & told me I could rent it out & be a LL, I would say thanks but no thanks & run


    Lets not confuse a fixed term tenancy with just a tenancy - fixed term tenancies (with a lease that clearly states the termination date) can not be terminated before the termination date unless there is a break clause within the lease that allows for this, or unless both the tenant & the landlord agree to break the lease. Once a fixed term tenancy ends though you are back to Statutory Notice & regardless of whether the term is fixed or not, after 6 months a tenant ends up with Part 4 rights. (edited to say that anti social behaviour trumps all of that...if you can prove it bad enough to warrant termination that is)

    Post edited by just_a_gurl on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,430 ✭✭✭ Claw Hammer


    Some landlords had tenants move out and either had to re-let at lower rents or leave properties vacant for lengthy periods of up to a year. If they went with the lower rent the were stuck with a new lower rent-cap than previously and if vacant for a year, lost a years rent and still had the old rent cap. Not surprisingly, many simply sold up. Not surprisingly rents are now even higher than before. When is the penny going to drop? So-called tenant-protection measures invariably end up as tenants-being-screwed measures.



  • Registered Users Posts: 36,054 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    not sure what any of that has to do with the post you quoted or indeed the change in legislation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 just_a_gurl


    @ohnonotgmail

    My comment re undersupply was in response to you asking:

    we have had undersupply in the rental market for how long now?

    I am agreeing with you when you inferred there is an undersupply & I am giving my opinion as to why I think that undersupply exists.

    Is it your contention then that the change in legislation was only in response to the undersupply in the market & that this undersupply is the reason you believe tenants deserve more protection than a LL?

    Sorry but that wasn't actually clear to me at the time, nor was it clear by way of response to the post you responded to. I can see your argument but I don't agree with it.

    Legislation in this sector has actually tipped the scales on LLs in favour of the tenant & I don't believe that was the correct approach. I think both parties are entitled to equal rights & equal share of obligations.

    If the tenant broke that contract by leaving early, why should the landlord not be entitled to compensation for breach of contract?

    My comments re Fixed Term tenancies was because I believe that when @timmyntc referred to Breach of contract & a tenant leaving early as quoted above he must surely have been referring to a fixed term tenancy only



  • Registered Users Posts: 406 ✭✭ MakersMark


    This legislation was as communist as it gets.


    Tenant not obliged to pay rent.

    But if tenant lost his job he got 350 a week.

    Landlord not allowed to issue a notice of termination.


    Govt refused to compensate landlords.


    Every other business in the country was compensated and kept afloat.



  • Registered Users Posts: 193 ✭✭ phildub


    I dont know that you could force someone to live in a house. What if the tenant purchased their own home, are they going to be forced to pay rent and mortgage indefinitely? What if they lost their job and could no longer afford the rent payments. Forcing a tenant to remain in the rented accommodation would end up with the landlord possibly not receiving rent. At least if the place is unoccupied they have a chance of trying to let it out.

    In march 2020 I was living in an apartment that cost 2500/month to rent. One of my roommates left and went back to their home country, the other one lost his cash in hand job and couldn't claim pup. I had been supplementing my income with hospitality job which I then lost and saw a considerable drop in my income. There is absolutely no way I could have continued to pay that kind of rent. We had paid March. We paid April and the landlord allowed us to use the deposit for May and we were gone by Starr of June. If I had been forced to stay there the landlord simply would not have got the rent money. If he kicked me out, for whatever the reason, I would have been homeless during a pandemic. I think that is the reason for the tenant protection and not having the same for the landlord.



  • Registered Users Posts: 78,140 ✭✭✭✭ Victor


    "You assume Tenants required more protection - based on what?" - the state didn't want populations moving around unnecessarily during a pandemic.


    "And why would LLs not also require protection during an unprecedented pandemic?" - the vast majority of landlords had sitting tenants or could get new tenants.



Advertisement