Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Winter 21/22 Eviction Ban (was: And just like that, FFFG lose 298000 votes))

Options
1246727

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    Even if it is an orderly exit that is also increasing in momentum, would you not say this will make the housing crisis worse?

    I would think most of the people posting here are not saying 165k rental will leave in the next 6 months. Most understand housing moves slower compared to other investments such as stocks but a 2.5pc decrease in rental stock compounded every year for the next 5-10 years will make the whole situation a lot worse. I suspect we have had much more than a 5pc decrease over the past few years yet prices continued to go up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    One of the biggest worries ll have is the inability to sell their asset and the fact the government have started to do this is a tipping point where more will sell up if they still can when the ban is lifted.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 TenMoreMinutes


    Another issue here is that landlords who have properties that are currently vacant or will soon be vacated by tenants will be incredibly reluctant to rent their property out in the face of government interference and much more inclined to sell now or leave vacant for a time rather than take on the risk of a new tenancy during an eviction ban.



  • Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭CandyButcher


    i rang citizen’s information today to find out if this stands to people renting out a room in there home where there was no lease no contract no RTB none of that. but they couldn’t answer me.

    Does anyone know 100% if this eviction ban stands to them too ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭LJ12345


    I read in one of the news articles that licensees are included in the eviction ban. I’ll see if I can find it, this may have challenges though and might be overturned. It’s crazy.


    edit: link added

    does this read as licenses or student specific licenses?

    “The plan itself will also cover licenses/tenancies in student specific accommodation and student tenancies within the general rental market.”



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19 john_this


    Hi,

    I’d really appreciate somebody’s thoughts situation, please drop me an email if you can help.

    I’ve been living abroad for 3 years for work, my wife had my daughter in 2021 and are expecting our second in April 2023. I will be returning to Ireland in June 2023. I’ve been renting our family home since 2019 while away, and the tenants have changed each year with the exception of the current tenants who are a month into their second annual lease. Im really anxious that I will not have anywhere to house my family when Im back home in Ireland next summer? Should I issue my notice now before the 1st of Nov? Does this mean that 10 days would be served now and approx 170 from 1st April? Or how does it work? thanks in advance!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,594 ✭✭✭newmember2


    For the previous Covid eviction ban it was a pause on any existing notice periods, and then the notice period continuing after the moratorium ended. Also was the prohibition of issuing notices to quit during the moratorium.

    For this current ban, I've actually heard the housing minister say that any notices that finish during the moratorium will now finish at the end of the moratorium - so not a pause as it was in the previous ban. But I have to say they weren't very clear in what they were saying and were more intent getting the message out that non-paying or antisocial tenants would be exceptions to the ban. So looks like there'll be a shitload of evictions come April 1st 2023.


    I'd be issuing a notice now if I were you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19 john_this


    If it’s issued now , my notice is 180 days (lease longer than 6mths) , so would it be 10 from now, then a break until 1st April, and the remaining 170 bringing the termination date to around mid-Sept 2023?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Landlords were exiting because of high house prices and cashing-in. Leaving because of "regulations" is a lobby wheeze to extract favourable tax treatment from the government over-and-above already favourable treatment.

    The exchequer is essentially paying the interest on buy-to-let mortgages for goodness sake. If you can't turn a buck when the government is literally bunging you taxpayer money to wash your face, you're not exactly John D. Rockefeller.

    The IPOA (landlord association) are property rights maximalists. They have always aggressively lobbied against any increased tenants rights.



  • Registered Users Posts: 337 ✭✭DFB-D


    You will probably need to wait for the particulars when the legislation is available.

    If I were you, I would tell the tenants of your plans and say you will give the proper notice, but if they find somewhere in the meantime to take it and not to worry about notice.

    September will be crazy for tenants to change properties, so there is a risk they won't find anything, which means they may end up overholding.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    I imagine you can be serving your notice while the eviction ban is on. Just if it is up during the ban then you cant evict then, but the move out date is the day after the ban ends.

    Its supposed to be an eviction ban, not a notice freeze.

    There is no reason whatsoever that this shouldnt be the case logically.

    If its not then there are shenanigans going on here and I wouldnt be surprised if the eviction ban kept getting extended like all other temporary legislation.

    Prepare for lots of time wasting and dragging from the RTB too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden



    Not really. I think at best you can replace a rental property with one rental but in most cases you will need more than one rental to replace the one being sold. A not uncommon example - You could have a 3 bed house being sold that has 3 couples living in it. They will probably end up renting 3 apartments these days as couples who share generally want their own place after a while anyway.

    So you have one property being sold, maybe a family buying it, because lets be honest, investros are unlikely to buy it to rent nowadays.

    So you have gone from 1 occupied unit to needing 3 units for rent in just one transaction.



  • Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭bluedex


    @Yurt2

    Total and utter rubbish

    People making this out as landlord v renter issue. Landlords bad, renters good (or not so bad). It's not, it's just facts. Have private LLs exited in large numbers? Yes. Has supply improved and become more affordable? No.

    Some of the rubbish spouted on here is laughable.

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    With (extremely limited) respect, you're the poster wading-in making some brief low-detail doctrinaire point, and the rest of your post is riddled with you calling other posts "rubbish", "clueless" and accusing people of bitching and wanting the government or looking after them.

    I'm looking at your postcount. If you have a point you want to make, make it. But low-post-count spring lambs with attitude problems are ten a penny. The one they thing they all have in common is they bite off more than they can chew when insulting other posters, lose their head and flame-out and get banned spitting insults after getting pummelled on the facts when dragged into deep waters on topic.

    What's your fate? Will you start using your manners or do you want to go-out like the others?



  • Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭bluedex


    Just calling out nonsensical rubbish when I see it.

    Of which there is plenty...

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭DubCount


    Homelessness is caused by a lack of supply of homes.

    How many homes will the eviction ban create? Zero.

    How many new tenancies will the eviction ban create? Zero

    Its a sticky plaster that just pushes the problem out to 31 March, when all the evictions which were going to happen, will start happening again, plus a few more besides.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 TenMoreMinutes


    You're exactly right, I think it's so the government can say they did something, and the opposition parties can't have a go at them when it doesn't work because they were all calling for the eviction ban.

    I half believe that the opposition parties knew it wouldn't work, but they thought the government would never do it, and now their bluff has been called.

    I think the ban will be extended on the basis of the situation being worse in March. It won't work, so they can either admit the failure, or extend the ban. This government isn't exactly the owning up type.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yurt2 is the rental market expert here on boards its best not to question him, he knows how both landlords and renters feel despite currently being neither.

    The view from some on boards is that landlords are being babies regarding further legislation in the market that severely restricts what they can do with their asset over the next five months. The same people also believe the the over regulation of the market in the tenants favour is not going to convince landlords to leave when current data shows that they are already leaving at a significant rate. These measures are designed to stem the flow of landlords leaving, if rentals were so easy and lucrative landlords wouldn't consider selling up. Landlords have been requesting two small changes from government for years none of which have been considered, ability to evict non-paying/anti-social tenants in a reasonable time frame weeks not years and a suitable deposit scheme but when tenants need new legislation it can be enacted within a month apparently so you might be able to see why the proposed changes would annoy some.

    There are two stakeholders involved in the rental market landlords and tenants, currently the government is only looking after the interests of tenants which is very short sighted. The same argument gets banded about here on boards constantly but but but I'm not paying rent I'm paying somebody else's mortgage (you are paying rent in order to use somebody else's property the landlord may or may not have a mortgage but that's their business), landlords are on the pigs back because the can write off expenses/interest (that's how business operates) and its my home how dare the landlord take it back (its not its the landlords property they should be free to cash out if they need to once sufficient notice is provided, if you want a long-term security buy a property if you cant afford to do that the state should hopefully provide support).

    Its evident that some peoples comments on this thread are not based in fact and come from a general dislike of landlords. They appear not to want landlords to exist but they also don't want them to be able to leave the rental market.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Spring lamb. Attitude problem. The internet resplendent with edgelords full of heat but no light "calling out nonsensical rubbish"

    Make your point, or don't make it. But signing up to a site to immediately flame and insult at every turn leads only to one thing...



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    I’d just serve notice now, you know you’re going to be back next year and need your house for your family, sooner the notice is in,the sooner you’ll get your property back, they’ll still have a long time to find somewhere else.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    The government are in an extreme grey area as it stands in terms of constitutionality of the ban, and the only way it can be legislated for is that it’s time limited, if it looks like their trying to extend the ban, then they are far outside of what’s constitutionally allowable regardless of circumstances, according to a lawyer on the radio anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭The Student


    I can tell you your assumption that landlords are exiting the market due to high prices is inaccurate. Some are there is no doubt of that but I can tell you a lot of intentional landlords are leaving because of the legislation.

    Being a landlord (not an accidental one) is a business decision. Part of any rational business decision is to compare the best place to invest and which gives the best return (not solely current return but future return). Having some (not all) control over the business environment within which you compete is normal business risk.

    What we have in the private rental market for the small landlord taking all the risk and in some instances the rewards but in others all the risks and now rewards. I find it odd that you suggest "if you can't turn a buck....."

    I along with other landlords entered the market knowing the risk of business. I don't have an issue with competing in a normal functioning market, what I do however have is being told what I can't do and what I can do. it is my asset to do with as I wish. I entered into a contract and once I fulfill my obligations and the other party fulfill their obligations then that's it.

    I am not sure how you arrive at the conclusion the IPOA have lobbied against tenants rights. I actually don't recall any reduction in tenants rights over the last couple of years. If anything the tenants rights have been improved over and above those of the landlords.

    You do realise a landlord is a business person and not a social service provider?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    The IPOA have fought tooth and nail against any new tenant rights over the years. It's what they do. RPZs, improved security of tenure the Airbnb legislation. They were against it all. Waving around the constitution like Dana, despite not understanding the provisions within it.

    And it's not a presumption, landlords having been cashing-out on record-high house prices.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'd disagree, the IPOA are fairly toothless. They have questioned changes to legislation, voiced the concerns of their members and pointed out the effect poorly thought out legislation will have on the rental market but its generally ignored by the government.

    When the government appear unsure as to the legality of a moratorium they planning to implement of course its going to be questioned by those it will impact.



  • Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭dennis72


    You only post rubbish no link facts because of your ll hating attitude and you got that in spades

    LLs left because of legislation I was 1 and my accountant knows many more he represents

    Not all LL who have left sold up but are just protecting their investments differently.

    IPOA Are toothless

    The ban will have to be permanent

    I got out saw this coming since the covid one

    I only ever rented to tenants who where not subsidised by the government, those are not the ones driving current policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    It's the usual stuff, cheap envy fuelled populism that usefully supports the Agenda 2030 idea common among the political class of again making Irish property English, as well as German and American, or wherever these tax exempt REITs or insurance companies or similar tax and investment vehicles are based. It is fitting since this country is now largely a sort of tax scam for big US corporations.

    Anyone with a vacant house as a parent is in nursing care or because a couple or single person with a house have (perhaps temporarily) emigrated to have competent government (Liz Truss got rid of after a few weeks, while Michéal Martin the Irish male version has been here for years despite trailing in the last leadership vote) and less penal taxation, who wisely keep their house vacant, will be confirmed in their decision. While anyone who competently manages a property (which excludes a good many who pose as property managers) can have good paperwork and check references to usually exclude head the balls, it takes months or longer to get completely non compliant tenants out, even where rent is not paid or damage done. Nominally non payment of rent is excluded, but the RTB is grossly incompetent and the Courts are only a little better. And anyhow imagine telling Slab Murphy or other godfathers of the 'republican movement' that the rent was too high or it wasn't going to be paid any more. It wouldn't work out well, nor would doing the same with any corporate and politically connected landlords (the northern crew don't like filling out paperwork, so to speak while the connected see theirs speed through) like NAMA builders like one whose listed property fortuitously burns, although it would be physically less dangerous. Those categories excluded, overholders can look to a good few undisturbed months in someone else's temporarily rented out home.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28 somewhere45


    Well Landlords are getting the flock out. Spoke to our letting agent only an hour ago.

    He served 6 notices today and even more yesterday.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 TenMoreMinutes


    Not surprising. Any landlord with a tenancy of less than 6 months who wants out will have to issue before November to meet that May 1st termination date. Issuing after the 31st October with a termination date falling after January 31st means they will have a termination date of 18th June instead. It's a long 7 weeks additional delay.

    For any tenancy 6-12 months, issuing now makes a huge difference, because that tenancy has a minimum of 152 days notice, so in actual fact a landlord between 6-12 months issuing today with a notice period ending on or after April 1st is better off doing it before the legislation comes in because there is no effect in the legislation on that notice.

    Add to that landlords with over 1 year tenancies who MIGHT want their property vacant for any reason in the next 12 months, smart move is to issue notice just in case. If you wait until April, it's likely a ban happening again next winter will delay any effort to regain possession next year.

    People are talking about the notice periods being paused, but the legislation has no mention of that whatsoever.

    EDIT: Corrected a misinterpretation in being able to issue a NoT from November on.

    Post edited by TenMoreMinutes on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Out tenants are moving out anyway next month, but we were adviced to serve a termination notice of our own anyway in case they decide they dont want to move out. Im sure it wont come to that but we served it today just to cover the bases. I called the tenant yesterday just to tell them the reason for it in case they were wondering why they got it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    Can you imagine the panic that must be setting in in Government when all the notices are reported back by the RTB? They've opened an hornets nest with the ban.



Advertisement