If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on 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

The eviction ban

  • 07-03-2023 3:25pm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition

    There shouldn't have been one in the first place, and extending it would have made the housing crisis worse because it would have again shown landlords that the Government doesn't have a problem bypassing their rights to their own property.

    If the Government wanted to ease pressure in the rental market it would make it much easier for landlords to deal with tenants who don't want to pay what they owe. Those bloodsuckers are making it impossible for honest, working people, who want to rent houses.


    Donald Trump

    Post edited by Beasty on



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Shelga

    Everyone I’ve seen talk about this publicly seems to either be “We absolutely must extend the eviction ban” or “the eviction ban is terrible and unconstitutional”- as usual, there seems to be no one who can see pros and cons to it.

    From my POV, it does seem to be mostly cons. Small-time landlords are exiting the market in their droves, mostly because of government interference in everything, from what I can see. It really doesn’t matter whether people on Twitter give out about landlords- we need them if we want rental accommodation. It’s that simple. They should be asking how an environment can be fostered where being a landlord is appealing. Sadly, it seems like it’s too late.

    The only pro is that desperate people won’t be evicted for another 6 months, but that’s government forcing small-time landlords to take responsibility for the state’s own appalling failures on housing. It also seems to be impossible to evict people who actually deserve to be evicted.

    It’s all just an absolutely desperate state of affairs, and anyone who voted FG in the next GE needs their head examined.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,649 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill

    100% agree with you

    It's basically 30 years of rot. There's no saving it now.

    IMO Small time Landlords were Landlording before the RTB existed, as it was great back then. They could do what ever they wanted, use rent money to pay the mortgage without paying tax (not officially, but your chances of getting caught were extremely low). It was a great way to make a load of money/get someone else to pay for a property for you.

    As the RTB came into existence all that began changing. All of a sudden the Tax man is watching, as you now have to be registered. There were limits on what you could and couldn't do. Rent pressure zones and caps came into effect, and there was a mad scramble to try and charge extra for things like: Parking spots in apartments, having a pet, etc

    Landlords were still able to make money but they weren't making the extortionate amount of money they were previously.

    The tightening of regulations is a good thing, and I think they should get tighter, in that there needs to be rules about how many people are allowed to share a room/dwelling and the quality/upkeep/state of a rented dwelling.

    The kicker here is that all this started when the vulture and cuckoo funds came into town, and as the word Landlord became dirty and people starting bailing out, the funds picked up the slack. But they're happy to keep the properties empty as they base their bottom line on the appreciation in value of the said asset rather than the rent they make off it.

    Complete mess.

    I get there are accidental landlords, but they are outlier cases

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,649 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill

    Hefty property tax on dwellings that are empty for more that 4 months of the year in rent pressure zones.

    IE Use it for residential purposes and make money off it or sell it to someone that will either rent it themselves or live in it, you can't sit on it.

    The VHT as it stands is a joke: less than 30 days for 12 months, self assessed at the basic rate of LPT.

    There's 48,000 properties empty in Ireland for over 6 years, that alone is a crazy statistic.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,379 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig

    The government has shown what the future holds for landlords in that they will take control of peoples property as they see fit. I am getting out of the rental market asap because of this and selling up. It is an absolute mugs game if you are not an institutional investor where they can get tax free rents.

    I honestly feel for anyone who is homeless or facing eviction but I cannot finance the lives of strangers directly aswell as indirectly (via tax)

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,649 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill

    I don't think its the rate so much that's the issue, more so what qualifies a property as vacant.

    For example "one" you might be married with two kids (say 10 and 15) and you have a second or ever third property from deceased parents.

    You want to sit on those properties for your kids for when they are older, they were inherited between a married couple so there is likely very little or nothing owed on them. Renting is to much hassle, so just leave them empty and say you live in them for 30 days each year and you're exempt from that 3% tax.

    For example "two" you have a fund that is banking on the assets (whole block of apartments) gaining 10% value in the next 12 months, Vulture funds are exempt from tax on that 10% increase in the value of the asset (Mr Noonan). If one of those apartments is worth 300k, that 10% is 30k which is more than they would ever make renting it, and they can offload the asset quickly if they need to. Renting actually equates to hassle for these funds, but that was not envisaged when the plans to attract them to come here began just after the crash. 3% tax to these guys might be a big enough hit, but they're still making 7% "profit" on it and the property is still empty. Renting is not their business.

    I'd imagine there is ALOT of the above going on. (very hard to prove though) I do know though that, a lot the lights in Capital One come on at the same exact same time every night.

    Cleaning up the mess is going to be extremely painful for any government.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,316 ✭✭✭Consonata

    We never should have been so dependent on smaller Landlords to plug a gap in the property market to begin with to be quite honest. I don't have that much sympathy with the supposed aggrieved private Landlords who were lucky enough to buy a house in Dublin when the price was right. My sympathy is with people who are trapped renting at extortionate levels if they want to continue working at a good paying job.

    With that said, the eviction ban longterm likely wasn't going to be sustainable. Sinn Féin talking about doing it for 6 months wasn't going to do much. No matter how much emergency legislation you could bring in, no amount of cash is going to magic up 50,000 units of housing in that time frame, which is likely the amount of homes which will be required to make any respite from this crisis.

    This is also not to mention that most political parties go out of their way to denounce any housing development in their local area, PBP and SF included in that!

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,316 ✭✭✭Consonata

    No such thing as social and affordable homes whilst building costs are through the roof unfortunately. The LDA, the Govt. body is also building at a 20% premium compared to the private sector currently.

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,647 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    I'd say you'd be deluding yourself if you think there aren't 48k people renting who would gladly purchase those houses and have mortgage repayments less than rent. The issue is that present government policy allows speculators to make easy money by hoarding what should essentially be a common good

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭monkeybutter

    this whole mess goes back to no houses being built.

    this has massively inflated property values, so people are selling, i mean landlording is about investment and profit, end of

    nothing about interference with landlords. Sure those who want to be landlords are getting handsome rents, why sell?

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,709 ✭✭✭Economics101

    Getting rid of the eviction ban will still leave a 2-tier rental system: partly-frozen rents for those tenants in situ and very high free-market rents for newcomers. As long as this persists, existing landlords will leave, or be sqeezed out.

    No real solution until rent controls are abolished. Then existing tenants will lose, but overall rents should converge on somewhere between frozen and free-market levels. This of course would be political dynamite, so there would have to be an interim period of say 5 years to allow upward adjustments to market levels, plus a special HAP-style tenant support scheme.

    Badly-designed rent controls inevitable lead to big problems. When will politicians ever learn?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,647 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    We cant dictate to someone what they can and cant do with their property. Not long term anyway. Case in point today with the eviction ban.

    That is completely incorrect. If it was true, nobody would ever need planning permission for one thing.

  • Registered Users Posts: 27,911 ✭✭✭✭blanch152

    You are correct.

    At the very least, there are people renting at historical low rents who are saving more and more to buy, ready to go if the rent controls are ever lifted. As a result, both the landlord and homeless are losing out.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,242 ✭✭✭Patrick2010

    Darragh O Brien on Newstalk now saying he has instructed councils to buy houses that have tenants facing eviction, 600 in total. So house buyers, bear in mind you might be bidding against the local council for your dream house, guess who has the most money?

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭monkeybutter

    the obvious solution to this is to control the rent price set on properties that are exempt currently

    I mean youd wonder why they left that loophole, they love a loophole 🤣

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭Doc07

    Reasonable point. However, would you recommend bidding on a ‘dream house’ if it involved tenants who may not be too keen to move out?

    My friend (actual friend not made up anecdote I Promise) recently withdrew from a sale agreed as he became legitimately concerned tenants would not move out and solicitor essentially advised ‘bail out now’’

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭monkeybutter

    kachiiiiiing for those selling, it not like they can purchase these unless they pay full whack

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,297 ✭✭✭howiya

    I don't agree with the eviction ban so don't think it should have been introduced. However the trialling of it for three months so that they can point to it not working doesn't sit well with me either.

    A fairly cynical ploy instead of governing and standing up to those demanding it in the media, social media etc. If it's not a good idea now it wasn't a good idea then.

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,647 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the anecdote. That would have always been the case. Well I mean unless you go back decades and decades or even further.

    If you wanted a house to move into straight away, you would only ever buy one with vacant possession. That's not new.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭Doc07

    Maybe it wasn’t that common an example and apologies if so. I just meant buying from someone moving out of their house and having to compete with council would certainly seem unfair for those in first time buyer category etc. But where council are being asked to buy in this case includes scenarios where the current tenants wish to remain? Therefore precarious for a potential buyer who wants to be an owner occupier.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,788 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp

    The Government should have no business telling you what to do with your own property.

    It's up to the Government to house those without a roof over their head, not private property owners.

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    What percentage of the day are you using your car?

    When you’re not using it some knacker should have the right to take it for a small charge that the government pay from your taxes. You can ask for it back when you need it.

    Except if they don’t want to give it back and/or pocket the money the government give them from your taxes instead of paying for it’s use then screw you. Greedy car owner! And if you do ever get it back they’ve taken a c*** in the glove box.

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,647 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    I fully agree that opening the public purse (with, no doubt, the traditional absence of any accountability) in order to compete against private buyers is stupidity of the highest order.

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,647 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    If you have a commercial property under a lease, and you want to sell it, you have to sell it with the lessee in-situ.

    At no stage was there any rule or law against selling your property or not.

    Also, people are commonly forced to sell properties to the State under CPO, or threat of CPO

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,709 ✭✭✭Economics101

    I don't know what exactly you mean by that. Extend controls to non-pressure zones? Impose some sort of arbitrary limit on all rents?

    More market distortions and no positive effect on overall supply.

  • Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭tinsofpeas

    The housing situation in this country is just beyond words. Nearly.

    It has been created with purposeful action. Short term profit was put above all else, with many people making fortunes and many people put in desperate situations. That's short term planning and greed for you.

    And now, lo and behold, the short term is over. Its time for society to pay the piper.

    The only thing for sure is that when it comes to a toss-up between someone and their investment versus people going onto the streets, sympathy will only go one way.

    May you live in interesting times, Ireland.

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,560 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35

    Mick Barry the dirty red commie says tenents should refuse to leave the property if a landlord wants their house back.

    There was a landlord who texted in to the radio saying his tenents were paying nothing and he was 11 k out of pocket but you rarely hear about that, being a small landlord just seems more bother than its worth these days.

    Post edited by Galwayguy35 on

  • Registered Users Posts: 483 ✭✭Fred Astaire

    Any small landlord with a brain will sell as soon as this ban is up. This ban has told small landlords that the government will take control of your property as they see fit.

    Imagine being stupid enough to not sell before the next eviction ban next winter. Because, have no fear, there is going to be another one.

    This whole fiasco will decimate what is left of the rental market in Ireland.

  • Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭tinsofpeas

    Whatever about the extreme anecdotes, druggie layabout tenant or slumlord extraordinaire.

    If an average person was a tenant in an average landlords property, I certainly wouldn't leave if I knew I was walking into homelessness. Who would?

    The country is pure mickey mouse. You could have thousands in cash in pocket, references up the wahoo, a decent job, bank statements back to the 1800's, an affidavit from the pope, and you still would find it nigh on impossible to get a place to rent these days. And if you do, you're going to need all the money you can get under the sun.

    Tenants and landlords and everyone in between need to get these government things out the door. Or fight each other. Easy choice.

    But yeah, only a madman would walk into homelessness voluntarily.

  • Registered Users Posts: 894 ✭✭✭Emblematic

    I think one of the problems is groups representing small landlords lobbying until recently that the big danger to the market was oversupply. It makes sense. The fewer units built the more their rents skyrocket. They were arguing this point as recently as January of last year.

    They have changed their tune now but only because the crisis came to such a head that the government was forced to postpone no-fault evictions to prevent mass homelessness.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,647 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    So you don't want to be able to ask the local council to make your neighbour take down the unilaterally built monstrous extension overlooking and overshadowing your back garden? The one built with no consultation or permission?