The eviction ban

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347127#Comment_120347127

And as i said the homeless figures are not accurate, they dont tell an accurate story of whats happening, because its much worse than what they say.

If houses come up for sale the only people buying them are people with a need, as in they are already homeless (be that by the governments reckoning or not) or people who for some insane reason want to be landlords, or the government to house homeless people.

If some young couple moves out of their parents attic then good for them, if someone has to move into a hotel then thats terrible.

But the problem isnt anything other than abject mismanagement by the government for a long number of years.

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347203#Comment_120347203

Most people who own houses only own one.

If your buying your first house you are by definition homeless.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347203#Comment_120347203

So your saying unless you own a house (apartment?) you are homeless? So all renters should be declared homeless

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347306#Comment_120347306

Apologise so

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347291#Comment_120347291

Homlessness gives the impression of someone living on the streets or a shelter / hostel / hotel etc.

There are 11-12k or so people in this category including something like 2k kids.

That would lead you to believe that If you built 10k houses you would solve the problem but you wont.

And the reason for that is that there are many more than 12k people in this country who have a serious housing need but they are just not registered for government supports.

Strumms

I’ve no horse in either race but….

you will only disincentivise people paying rent if there is no repercussions for them not paying. If the government said… for 12 months anyone who steals from a shop, won’t be prosecuted… Anarchy reigns….and anarchy will reign in the rental market.

meanwhile the landlord can’t tell his bank manager re: mortgage … “ the tenant hasn’t coughed up rent for three months, I’m out 4500 euros, fûck all I can do, “…. The bank don’t care…

its a seriously undemocratic manoeuvre implementing any such ban, deal with the issue of supply vs demand….head on at source…

unfortunately the EU have zero appetite to deal with it….our government the same.

Emblematic

https://www.thejournal.ie/fact-find-eviction-ban-6014518-Mar2023/

Good fact-check article on the effectiveness of the no-fault eviction moratorium while it was in place. While politicians have said it did not help at all with with rising homelessness, however the article found:

By October, the number was at 1,601 families with 3,480 children – an increase of 178 families and 343 children in the three months from July. 

But in November – the first full month during which the ban was in place – the number of homeless families increased by just 15, with homeless children going up by just 14 (compared to increases of 60 families and 83 children between July and August). 

So in the very first month the rate at which families became homeless reduced from 178 per month to 15 per month.

Year-on-year:

To compare to the same period last year, between October and November 2021 the number of homeless families increased by 26, with homeless children going up by 35. 

This would seem to indicate that, contrary to what the politicians were saying, the no fault eviction deferment did have a role in reducing the rate at which people became homeless.

That is not to say that it should be continued indefinitely but perhaps the timing of the lifting needs to be looked at given hotels will be filling up with tourists coming into the spring and summer months.

mrslancaster

Losing your home must be one of the worst situations anyone can face, so stressful and worrying for those affected. The government knew that more landlords left every time extra regulations were introduced and yet they kept at it. It looks like indefinite tenancies plus the eviction ban really spooked landlords, and sadly, tenants are paying the price.

Changing the tax situation for landlords is not a great idea as others have posted. What might help is less complexity, a quicker RTB dispute process, a deposit scheme, and let both parties to a tenancy agreement agree a contract that suits them within less strict guidelines.

For instance, if both parties want a one year lease, let them have that. If they both agree to extend it, let them extend for another year or whatever period they want and then make both parties keep to the agreement with penalties for whoever breaks the contract. Some landlords and tenants would be happy to agree a 5/10/15/20+ year lease with break clauses, options to roll-over etc and thats great. That way both parties know where they stand, both have security. As things stand now, landlords have no idea how long tenants will be there, they are in limbo. Tenants have no idea if their landlord will decide to sell etc, they have no certainty.

A defined lease period means landlords cant terminate for family use, selling etc, tenants homes are secure for the agreed period, rent and allowed increases should be set out in the agreement and that seems fair to both parties. Landlords feel the current system favours tenants and they feel hard done by, would it not be better if both parties knew upfront what they were signing up to. Maybe the RTB should have some oversight of leases at the start of a tenancy instead of at the end when there's a problem - prevention being better than a cure comes to mind.

Also, REIT companies are not the disaster some think imo. Property rental is their business, they know the rules, they can provide more supply than individual landlords, their properties are high quality, all standards are met, regular maintenance, more security for tenants as family use or sale is unlikely, they appear to be profitable so will probably stay around. So if they have favourable tax treatment in return, is that not helping?

Whatever the government decides now, it has to be fair. Tenants and landlords have both been in stress mode for years now and they deserve better. Just my tuppenceworth.

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347941#Comment_120347941

In theory that sounds fine, but both parties will agree to whatever the landlord is offering because they are in such dire situations.

If a place comes up for rent now you have to abide by whatever conditions the landlord sets unfortunately.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347681#Comment_120347681

There was never going to be a good time to lift the moratorium however the government had no choice but to lift it.

If the had extended it as a minimum they would have had to allow LL look for the house back where they or a direct family member required it back.

It is possible as well that the courywould have overturned the ban in the case of owner requiring the same of the unit. Even if the courts upheld that part the way around was to look for possession for a family member and sell 12-18 months later.

The continuing of the ban was not an option because of that. You could also have the appalling vista of the state( through the RTB or other agencies) suing small LL in such situations after an 70-80 year old LL or his widow used such an option to sell the property

_Kaiser_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120339411#Comment_120339411

I'm reading back so apologies for replying to a post from a few days back but just wanted to add a tenants view on this one.

I'm renting my current place for 5 years and have a very good relationship with my landlord. He's not at all proactive but as a rule I leave him alone unless it's anything major, and he in turn charges me a very reasonable rent (although it was rented unfurnished so that would play a part too).

But, the council sent me a letter just before covid hit about doing one of these inspections. It never happened then because of the pandemic but I know of someone who lost their tenancy because of one of these (different county but same requirements) and I've recently received another letter about it and it's scheduled for this week.

I have seen the 7/8 page checklist the guy will be using and excessive is an understatement. The landlord says he'll sort anything out that they identify but I don't think he understands just what's involved. I've spoken to the council and the inspector and he assures me it's not to cause problems with tenants and landlords, but I think it's 50/50 that my landlord will freak out if they present him with a laundry list of mostly unnecessarily items that will cost a lot to rectify. Assuming that he could even get a tradesman in the first place.

I certainly don't want or need the place inspected. Sure there's things that could be done and I tend to take care of smaller things myself rather than chase the landlord about it, but I have a feeling that I'm going to be the one paying the most when this is done.

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348228#Comment_120348228

Well certainly the ban itself was only very reluctantly instated. However the timing of the exit could be questioned when they don't yet appear to have the necessary supports in place for dealing with the lifting of it.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348716#Comment_120348716

Explain to me what supports could have been put in place before the ban ended

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348731#Comment_120348731

Well I think there's a lot that could be done in providing information. For example, on the tenant-in-situ scheme there seems to be very little information on how to apply for this. No web pages as far as I can see.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348747#Comment_120348747

It will be 2-3 months before these houses go for sale so plenty of time to get that information up

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348769#Comment_120348769

However not true in every case. For example:

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2023/0312/1361770-eviction-ban/

This tenant had a "for sale" sign placed outside her home the day the Government announced they were lifting the ban.

redlough

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348800#Comment_120348800

I like the part when she wants someone to buy the house for her

I would love to just email the county council demanding them to buy a house for me….

what a country we live in

Emblematic

Would a model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348824#Comment_120348824

Well it would allow here to continue renting somewhere and avoid homelessness. I don't think she is being unreasonable if she has also looked in the private market and not found anything.

"I have no problem with a landlord selling, it's their choice. It's just there's nowhere to go and there's no help, there's little or no support for anyone to help you rent or to buy," Ellen said.

Emblematic

Can we learn from Vienna in Austria. There are some controls on rents there but generally it seems to work out reasonably well and no mass evictions.

https://www.insider.com/inside-vienna-apartments-rent-spacious-cheap-austria-2020-1

The above 140-square-meter apartment cost €1,200 a month and they don't have the constant threat of eviction.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348800#Comment_120348800

Yes and the longer the ban went on the worse it was going to get. The reality is that even if the ban was extended there would have to be exemptions and a coach and for would have walked through the exemptions.

Since before COVID there has been LL's pointing out the issues. What was a trickle is now a tsunami. The biggest problem is the opposition's is using it as a political football without a care for the consequences.

Just as an add on, if people were told that you could not get access to there pension lump sum until the government decided it was available or if you were told you could not have access to the money you had in the bank.

The fact is LL are p!ssed off the opposition and charities think more regulations were the answer they now have the answer.

LL's are walking away the left wing section of society and the charities did not want small LL now they have there wish.

It just proves the point be careful what you wish for.

BoxcarWilliam99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348800#Comment_120348800

The devil is in the detail.

"I originally got the eviction notice in March 2022"

The lady also rang Meath county council and asked them to buy her a house!

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348928#Comment_120348928

As a last resort. Wouldn't you too in a similar situation?

BoxcarWilliam99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348955#Comment_120348955

Poster made it look like the for sale sign came totally out of the blue.

That the evil landlord wanted her on the street .

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348183#Comment_120348183

I dont really understand what you mean.

Why would a tenant or a landlord not prefer a defined lease? Its in both their interests to know up-front where they stand.

At the moment we have the worst of all situations, its very vague for tenants because no body knows when their landlord will exit, its up in the air for landlords because they dont know what the government will do next to try and fix the mess.

Thats a terrible situation for any tenant not knowing when they could get a termination notice - absolutely stressful way to be living. Much better imo to have everything clearly mapped out so theres no shocks.

If landlords want secure rent and tenants want a secure home for a time period that suits them both, does a defined lease not help with that?

_Kaiser_

The other thing not spoken of enough is those who are renting privately and NOT getting HAP, welfare or any assistance whatsoever for housing beyond what their salary pays them.

It's not just housing either. Health, utility costs are the same.

It's great to talk about increasing social housing and assistance payments but there are huge numbers in the market who aren't entitled to anything and yet have to pay for it all regardless.

What about those people? They/we are massively unrepresented in the political debate.

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120349085#Comment_120349085

Different landlords want different things.

Tenants, or potential tenants have no possibility to influence anything with regards a rental. Its literally take it or get nothing at the moment.

The idea that both parties would sit down and decide on something that suits them both is laughable because only one person is deciding terms in the current market

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120349085#Comment_120349085

I think both sides would be better off with some sort of defined lease as you say. Tenant would know that they have the place for a given period of time with no threat of the landlords family member moving in or being evicted in order to sell the property. Landlord knows that they have a tenant for that period with no vacant periods. The lease could still be broken with agreement from both sides and, of course, eviction would still be possible in cases of severe damage or non-payment of rent.

It is simple, commonsense, business principles.

_Kaiser_

I've made the mistake of catching up on the Prime Time discussion on this from during the week.

It's the same old thing. Government representative vs SF and more about the parties and grandstanding than the issue.

Our political system is fundamentally broken. It's no wonder so many core and essential functions of Government and State are broken.

Emblematic

In fairness to the politicians, most of them got into the business as local fixers competing with other TDs in the same area attending funerals and the like and arranging jobs and favours for their constituents in order to get reelected. Loyal ones end up getting ministerial positions where they try to mediate between the various vested interests while holding on to their position as long as possible. Expecting understanding, or indeed interest, in national issues is unrealistic.

I think there are some similarities with the financial crisis. Completely oblivious to the oncoming crisis, the Government of the day even belittled those warning that problems were coming. Then when the crisis hit, panic temporary measures were introduced. While these temporary measures were in place, still nothing was done to fix the underlying issues and an even bigger crisis then occurred.

That in the abstract describes both the Government response to the housing crisis and the financial crisis.

_Kaiser_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120349209#Comment_120349209

I agree that what you described is indeed the problem with our national political system, but that's why I say it's fundamentally broken.

Let's not forget that we also have a big local political establishment as well, and it's those that should be dealing with the local issues and funeral attendances etc.

National politicians should be focusing on the national issues but you're right - the focus across the board is and always has been on keeping their hand in the pot and enriching themselves and their hangers on for as long as they can.

But, the electorate are also at fault for repeatedly electing TDs who fail to deliver. The problem there though is that the "alternatives" are either the other side of the coin or much much worse.

Emblematic

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2023/0312/1361762-direct-provision/

In related news, 52 people who have been granted international protection are being asked to move into tents to join 79 people already in tents.

In November last year, the department adopted a policy that "over the coming months it will support their move to independent accommodation and self-sufficiency".

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120348800#Comment_120348800

Most people don't read full articles. They only read the first couple of paragraphs at best. So they'll think, thanks to RTE's intentionally misdirecting article that the landlord came along out of the blue, no forewarning at all, and put a "For Sale" sign up.

This didn't happen. You have to get to the 9th paragraph to find that out.

Shoddy journalism.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120350197#Comment_120350197

That is fair enough. Once they have been granted asylum, they have access to everything a citizen has - such as access to job and SW etc. We hear for years how DP is terrible, but then they get status and can leave it, and they decide to stay there. It has been an issue for the past few years but hasn't really been highlighted.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120350544#Comment_120350544

Paying the landlord directly introduces a moral hazard whereby the landlord doesn't need to fulfil their obligations to the tenant but will get paid anyway.

Don't forget also that it is the landlords business venture and their responsibility to choose tenants.

irishproduce

Reading a SF TD in the indo today. Is the whole thing not a zero sum game, a closed loop system. Zero sum game is defined as one winner and one loser but no net change in overall situation.

One person is evicted so the landlord can sell up. A young couple for example buy it and have a home.

So the social tenant is moved out and the young buyers move in. It's not like the landlord sells it to a demolition company who destroy the house.

The house is still in use just by someone else.

Therefore this comes down to what side you believe is more entitled participate in the housing system. The social tenants or the buyers.

Either way the overall situation on the ground doesn't change.

Is that me interpreting it too simply?

Pawwed Rig

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120351306#Comment_120351306

Well Yes because there are more than 2 demographics involved that the social tenant and the young couple.

Sunny Disposition

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347681#Comment_120347681

That is brutal journalism. Reflective of some useless politicians, that can't think long or even medium term.

The Spider

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120350708#Comment_120350708

Not taxed as a business so stop calling it that (you’d think a-have-a-go economist would get that 😂)

squidgainz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120352789#Comment_120352789

Sorry what? You don't understand the word difference between a business and a company hahah

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120352789#Comment_120352789

There are many different types of business venture and business structures. I think you are getting confused with "company" which is one type of structure that you can use. You can set up a company if you like, once you fulfill the requirements, and that corporation will indeed be subject to corporation tax rates. But the company owns the assets/profits and not you. You will be taxed at your personal marginal rate as you extract them (except under certain exemptions that you can try to qualify for)

You're learning a lot from me. Wasn't it yourself that I had to explain how a contractor was not the same as a staff employee? I should be charging you for this.

The Spider

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120352911#Comment_120352911

😂Thanks Donald consider me told 👍

irishproduce

Being discussed on Katie Hannon now on rte1.

So far it's all tenants. Solidarity being passed around.

Rte really applying pressure the last few days

Bass Reeves

Have watched it on RTE+1. Two tenant's given serious time one a PBP councillor and one member of the Socialist Party member. Connor Skehan given as a panel member given about 2-3 minutes compared time given to Eoin O Brion who was allowed to hog the program. Nessa Hourrigan given rakes of time as well. FF TD probably lasjd less time individually than either of them.

One LL allowed to speak twice and one property manager allowed to speak once.

LL has taken back her house and is not renting it at present. 2 bed in Dublin being let for 1050. A family member is moving into it.

When we often talk about RPZ's we forget that from 2014-2016 the government also had a rent freeze in place.

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356032#Comment_120356032

Terrible situation for those tenants, the government have really messed up. Theres nothing to rent and the GP member looking for more changes to prevent landlords selling will probably scare another lot of landlords into leaving. How is that going to help?

They need to stop changing the rules every few weeks. If they just leave the current rules as they are, maybe extending the ban for another few months would give everyone some breathing space. More restrictions on landlords doesn't seem like the best option.

Pawwed Rig

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356069#Comment_120356069

Anyone who doesn't see what is coming will be badly burnt if they are a LL. The anti LL policies were the start. The reduction in rents of social tenants pushed through without consultation or warning.

The eviction ban then showed that the govt does not consider it your property (at least not exclusively).

What does the future and a SF govt hold? It won't be good for LLs anyway. Talk of having to sell houses with tenants in situe would severely impact their value. Lots of other anti LL rumblings from Leinster House.

As I said earlier in the thread I have great sympathy for people facing homelessness but am not willing to take on a disproportionate level of risk to solve the problem.

redlough

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356069#Comment_120356069

"every few weeks"? the eviction ban is in for years and has left many landlords stuck with ban tenants.

Extend for another few months will make no difference, if they do people will just wait and then once it is announced it is gone again the same reaction, hoping that it will be extended again.

The market is f**ked already and thats after years and years of changing rules so the tenants have all the power. Don't see that changing anytime soon.

Murph85

Maybe, just maybe, they should build more housing...

Murph85

It might make sense to offer incentives to ditch sites zoned for commercial and switched to residential, where the site is appropriate. Perhaps even freezing any new commercial developments, until residential, is under control...

Only 27000 homes expected to be completed this year... 6,000 less than targets and around half of what many " experts" believe is actually needed...

https://www.newstalk.com/news/nearly-27000-new-homes-set-to-be-delivered-this-year-bpfi-1446349?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1678778572-1

redlough

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356231#Comment_120356231

You can build a million houses and you will still have homeless, people will still sit on waiting lists and in hotels till they get the "forever" home in the exact location they want.

Over 10,000 houses still available for sale in Ireland today

Murph85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356290#Comment_120356290

I agree... but instead of dictating to people what they can do woth their homes , resulting in landlords fleeing the market and leaving homes empty. They would be better off getting their finger out and building more... they always want the easy option...