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
Are rent controls making things better or worse for renters?
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 30614
Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »sure but your average Irish LL with a few apartments is highly unlikely to go down that route.
The average Irish landlord (58% of landlords)- has 1 unit. A further 28% of landlords have 2 units. Only 14% of landlords have more than 2. Source RTB annual report.0 -
I'm a landlord, a single property former PPR, in an RPZ. I did my sums a few months back when our tenants of nearly 5 years moved out and decided to let again. The rent hadn't been reviewed in more than 3 years and the RPZ rules punish you in perpetuity if you don't set it to the maximum allowable so I didn't really have any other option so it'll feed the stats as an above the notionally allowed annual increase but it is in fact compliant with the law.
I didn't offer a fixed term lease because that would lock them in until after part IV kicks in. If things go ok for the six months, I'll have no problems with continuing into part IV but a 6 months getting to know you period before being tied to a 6 year term is not unreasonable. I don't even think the 6 year part IV term is in any way unreasonable, if part IV didn't exist, I'd probably prefer to be working with long fixed term leases, but there simply has to be some "no fault" exit for the landlord, as I said once every 6 years is probably sufficient.
Something had to be done to hold back rents and I'm reasonably ok with the RPZ apart from the fact that it can lock in two identical neighbouring properties at massively different rents which is unfair to the landlord in one house and the tenant in the other. I understand that was necessary to bring the rules in overnight but they've had more than enough time to bring in something better. New tenancies should be tied to a rent index for an area, not the previous rent, which should pull back the top end rents.
I'll now be watching this bill like a hawk as the part IV date looms in a few month. I won't be tied into an indefinite term with no provision for terminating a tenancy to sell the property in a scenario where banks won't offer a mortgage to prospective buyers without vacant possession. If the risk is hanging out there, I may just have to give them notice before part IV, something I wouldn't otherwise do. I'll keep it vacant until this is decided one way or the other, if it passes into law I'll be selling.0 -
alias no.9 wrote: »I'm a landlord, a single property former PPR, in an RPZ. I did my sums a few months back when our tenants of nearly 5 years moved out and decided to let again. The rent hadn't been reviewed in more than 3 years and the RPZ rules punish you in perpetuity if you don't set it to the maximum allowable so I didn't really have any other option so it'll feed the stats as an above the notionally allowed annual increase but it is in fact compliant with the law.
I didn't offer a fixed term lease because that would lock them in until after part IV kicks in. If things go ok for the six months, I'll have no problems with continuing into part IV but a 6 months getting to know you period before being tied to a 6 year term is not unreasonable. I don't even think the 6 year part IV term is in any way unreasonable, if part IV didn't exist, I'd probably prefer to be working with long fixed term leases, but there simply has to be some "no fault" exit for the landlord, as I said once every 6 years is probably sufficient.
Something had to be done to hold back rents and I'm reasonably ok with the RPZ apart from the fact that it can lock in two identical neighbouring properties at massively different rents which is unfair to the landlord in one house and the tenant in the other. I understand that was necessary to bring the rules in overnight but they've had more than enough time to bring in something better. New tenancies should be tied to a rent index for an area, not the previous rent, which should pull back the top end rents.
I'll now be watching this bill like a hawk as the part IV date looms in a few month. I won't be tied into an indefinite term with no provision for terminating a tenancy to sell the property in a scenario where banks won't offer a mortgage to prospective buyers without vacant possession. If the risk is hanging out there, I may just have to give them notice before part IV, something I wouldn't otherwise do. I'll keep it vacant until this is decided one way or the other, if it passes into law I'll be selling.
This bill you refer to, do you (or anybody else) have any more info on it?
i heard it being discussed on the radio with Fintan McNamara, but i was in the car and failed to take proper note.
seems like the Dept. is considering a proposal to end the practise of terminating a tenancy for purposes of sale or inhabitance by LL's relative. is that correct?
at what stage is the bill at?
maybe we need another thread to discuss it?0 -
alias no.9 wrote: »I didn't offer a fixed term lease because that would lock them in until after part IV kicks in. If things go ok for the six months, I'll have no problems with continuing into part IV but a 6 months getting to know you period before being tied to a 6 year term is not unreasonable. I don't even think the 6 year part IV term is in any way unreasonable, if part IV didn't exist, I'd probably prefer to be working with long fixed term leases, but there simply has to be some "no fault" exit for the landlord, as I said once every 6 years is probably sufficient....
I'll now be watching this bill like a hawk as the part IV date looms in a few month. I won't be tied into an indefinite term with no provision for terminating a tenancy to sell the property in a scenario where banks won't offer a mortgage to prospective buyers without vacant possession. If the risk is hanging out there, I may just have to give them notice before part IV, something I wouldn't otherwise do. I'll keep it vacant until this is decided one way or the other, if it passes into law I'll be selling.
I too am a one property landlord.
Current tenants started their 4th year (one year leases) in October.
What is the 6 year term to which you refer?
If we decided to sell next year (when their lease ends in September) are there any restrictions?
Thanks.
D.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30614
I too am a one property landlord.
Current tenants started their 4 year (one year leases) in October.
What is the 6 year term to which you refer?
If we decided to sell next year (when their lease ends in September) are there any restrictions?
Thanks.
D.
The proposal is that you will have to give the tenants 6 months rent in a lumpsum if you wish to regain vacant possession of the property in order to sell it........... Alternatively- you can sell it, but it'll have a sitting tenant- and good luck to anyone who hopes to use it as a PPR- they will have to pay a commensurate sum to the tenant- and hope and pray that they then move (and why should they?)0 -
Advertisement
-
The_Conductor wrote: »The proposal is that you will have to give the tenants 6 months rent in a lumpsum if you wish to regain vacant possession of the property in order to sell it........... Alternatively- you can sell it, but it'll have a sitting tenant- and good luck to anyone who hopes to use it as a PPR- they will have to pay a commensurate sum to the tenant- and hope and pray that they then move (and why should they?)
time to get out i reckon.:eek:0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »The proposal is that you will have to give the tenants 6 months rent in a lumpsum if you wish to regain vacant possession of the property in order to sell it........... Alternatively- you can sell it, but it'll have a sitting tenant- and good luck to anyone who hopes to use it as a PPR- they will have to pay a commensurate sum to the tenant- and hope and pray that they then move (and why should they?)
Just to be clear; is that if I want to sell while they’re still within their lease?
Current lease is up September 30, 2019. If I gave them notice prior to this (30 days, 90 days?) would I still owe them 6 months rent, if the proposed law was in place?
Finally, is there a proposed period after which they’re entitled to this lump sum? E.g. would tenants who’d only been there one year be eligible?
Many thanks.
D.0 -
Just to be clear; is that if I want to sell while they’re still within their lease?
Current lease is up September 30, 2019. If I gave them notice prior to this (30 days, 90 days?) would I still owe them 6 months rent, if the proposed law was in place?
Finally, is there a proposed period after which they’re entitled to this lump sum? E.g. would tenants who’d only been there one year be eligible?
Many thanks.
D.
The view of the RTb is that you cannot serve notice during a fixed term lease. Even on the present law you will have problems.0 -
The view of the RTb is that you cannot serve notice during a fixed term lease. Even on the present law you will have problems.
Now I feel I’ve really taken my eye off the ball!
If you can’t serve notice during a lease, when can you serve notice?
For example, my tenants will be expecting to hear from me around September 30, usually to renew the lease.
Are you saying that it’s there decision whether the property continues to be occupied? Is it the case that I only regain possession if they choose to move out and not if I give notice?
Thanks again.
D.0 -
Just to be clear; is that if I want to sell while they’re still within their lease?
Current lease is up September 30, 2019. If I gave them notice prior to this (30 days, 90 days?) would I still owe them 6 months rent, if the proposed law was in place?
Finally, is there a proposed period after which they’re entitled to this lump sum? E.g. would tenants who’d only been there one year be eligible?
Many thanks.
D.
Right now, once they have been tenants for 6 months or more, they have security of tenure for up to 6 years except for very limited circumstances, selling the property, you or a family member moving in, etc... in which case you give notice of increasing length depending on how long they've been there. If you start with a 1 year fixed contract right now without any break clause in the first six months, you're handing them 6 years out of the traps except for selling, moving in, etc...
The proposal is to shorten the initial 6 months to 2 months for them to acquire security of tenure and for that to be for life effectively. The only way to break the tenancy is to pay 6 months rent in compensation.0 -
Advertisement
-
How about 4pc increase for existing tenants however if tenants leave you can set it at whatever rate you want. Current tenants can get a decent deal while ll are not snookered when they leavealias no.9 wrote: »I'm a landlord, a single property former PPR, in an RPZ. I did my sums a few months back when our tenants of nearly 5 years moved out and decided to let again. The rent hadn't been reviewed in more than 3 years and the RPZ rules punish you in perpetuity if you don't set it to the maximum allowable so I didn't really have any other option so it'll feed the stats as an above the notionally allowed annual increase but it is in fact compliant with the law.
I didn't offer a fixed term lease because that would lock them in until after part IV kicks in. If things go ok for the six months, I'll have no problems with continuing into part IV but a 6 months getting to know you period before being tied to a 6 year term is not unreasonable. I don't even think the 6 year part IV term is in any way unreasonable, if part IV didn't exist, I'd probably prefer to be working with long fixed term leases, but there simply has to be some "no fault" exit for the landlord, as I said once every 6 years is probably sufficient.
Something had to be done to hold back rents and I'm reasonably ok with the RPZ apart from the fact that it can lock in two identical neighbouring properties at massively different rents which is unfair to the landlord in one house and the tenant in the other. I understand that was necessary to bring the rules in overnight but they've had more than enough time to bring in something better. New tenancies should be tied to a rent index for an area, not the previous rent, which should pull back the top end rents.
I'll now be watching this bill like a hawk as the part IV date looms in a few month. I won't be tied into an indefinite term with no provision for terminating a tenancy to sell the property in a scenario where banks won't offer a mortgage to prospective buyers without vacant possession. If the risk is hanging out there, I may just have to give them notice before part IV, something I wouldn't otherwise do. I'll keep it vacant until this is decided one way or the other, if it passes into law I'll be selling.0 -
Just dont give a lease in September and the lease becomes a month by month lease and you have to work under the rules of the residental tenancies act that is there at the moment.Now I feel I’ve really taken my eye off the ball!
If you can’t serve notice during a lease, when can you serve notice?
For example, my tenants will be expecting to hear from me around September 30, usually to renew the lease.
Are you saying that it’s there decision whether the property continues to be occupied? Is it the case that I only regain possession if they choose to move out and not if I give notice?
Thanks again.
D.
Keep any eye on the new rules and if this daft thing comes in where you have to give 6months rent the give statutory notice before it comes into law. Get the statutory declaration from rtb website and have it ready to give to the tenant. You need a peace commissioner to witness your signature. Make sure you work out how much notice you have to give from the start of the tenancy.
You will find the form here https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/forms-documents0 -
alias no.9 wrote: »Right now, once they have been tenants for 6 months or more, they have security of tenure for up to 6 years except for very limited circumstances, selling the property, you or a family member moving in, etc... in which case you give notice of increasing length depending on how long they've been there. If you start with a 1 year fixed contract right now without any break clause in the first six months, you're handing them 6 years out of the traps except for selling, moving in, etc...
The proposal is to shorten the initial 6 months to 2 months for them to acquire security of tenure and for that to be for life effectively. The only way to break the tenancy is to pay 6 months rent in compensation.
on first viewing this proposal does seem very draconian, but i might not be so adverse to it if there is included in the Bill a fast-track means (with teeth) to evict non-paying &/or anti-social tenants.
i mean if i have a good tenant and he wants to stay in my property for 10, 15, or 20 years, so long as he pays his rent and doesn't cause issues, then personally i don't have a problem with that.
if fact i would argue why would any LL have a problem with a paying tenant, who wants to stay long-term?0 -
How about 4pc increase for existing tenants however if tenants leave you can set it at whatever rate you want. Current tenants can get a decent deal while ll are not snookered when they leave
It's reasonable to limit the increase on sitting tenants tenants they need certainty, I'd never be in a hurry to increase the rent with sitting tenants if they were looking after the place and always up to date with the rent.
For new tenants, some level of sanity must be maintained or something is going to blow and **** knows what other parts of the economy it takes with it. The current system where one property is fixed at one rent and the identical next door neighbor can charge twice that rent is nonsense.
If there's going to be a rent index, it should be the benchmark for new tenancies, maybe with a bit of leniency for energy efficiency or standard of fixtures and fittings, but its time to finish with the previous rent baseline. The current system doesn't even allow for a landlord to reduce the rent short term if the tenant is hit with some short term problems because that then becomes the baseline for all future tenancies, even if that tenant moves on.
Maybe the tax system should be reformed so that the rates are based on percentiles of the rent index?
There's lots of options that would see landlords of similar properties treated the same and also tenants of similar properties treated the same.0 -
alias no.9 wrote: »It's reasonable to limit the increase on sitting tenants tenants they need certainty, I'd never be in a hurry to increase the rent with sitting tenants if they were looking after the place and always up to date with the rent.
For new tenants, some level of sanity must be maintained or something is going to blow and **** knows what other parts of the economy it takes with it. The current system where one property is fixed at one rent and the identical next door neighbor can charge twice that rent is nonsense.
If there's going to be a rent index, it should be the benchmark for new tenancies, maybe with a bit of leniency for energy efficiency or standard of fixtures and fittings, but its time to finish with the previous rent baseline. The current system doesn't even allow for a landlord to reduce the rent short term if the tenant is hit with some short term problems because that then becomes the baseline for all future tenancies, even if that tenant moves on.
Maybe the tax system should be reformed so that the rates are based on percentiles of the rent index?
There's lots of options that would see landlords of similar properties treated the same and also tenants of similar properties treated the same.
Honestly. Taxation should be the same as people that work normal jobs. Why should i as a landlord earn more for the same person that works. In any rate. Im always of the opinion that the markwt should dictate the cost and not the government impeding it.0 -
Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »on first viewing this proposal does seem very draconian, but i might not be so adverse to it if there is included in the Bill a fast-track means (with teeth) to evict non-paying &/or anti-social tenants.
i mean if i have a good tenant and he wants to stay in my property for 10, 15, or 20 years, so long as he pays his rent and doesn't cause issues, then personally i don't have a problem with that.
if fact i would argue why would any LL have a problem with a paying tenant, who wants to stay long-term?
A fast track eviction process for non payment or antisocial behaviour along would help. It would also help if a termination of tenancies was allowed in the instance of a sale to an owner occupant or perhaps keep the current clause on sale of the property but prohibit the the letting of the property to any other tenant for 2 years in instance the owner doesn't sell. I can recognise that there's spoofer landlords out there ending tenancies on the premise of selling but with no intention of selling but the current proposal is collective punishment rather than just targeting these spoofers.0 -
Honestly. Taxation should be the same as people that work normal jobs. Why should i as a landlord earn more for the same person that works. In any rate. Im always of the opinion that the markwt should dictate the cost and not the government impeding it.
A rent index is a measure of the market. The taxation thing could be an additional levy on rents above a certain percentile of the rent index for a given area, it doesn't have to be a discount. It's about discouraging a run away rental market because it presents a danger to the economy, being a landlord doesn't preclude me from recognising that current trends are dangerous.0 -
alias no.9 wrote: »A fast track eviction process for non payment or antisocial behaviour along would help. It would also help if a termination of tenancies was allowed in the instance of a sale to an owner occupant or perhaps keep the current clause on sale of the property but prohibit the the letting of the property to any other tenant for 2 years in instance the owner doesn't sell. I can recognise that there's spoofer landlords out there ending tenancies on the premise of selling but with no intention of selling but the current proposal is collective punishment rather than just targeting these spoofers.
i agree. there are greedy & unscrupulous LLs who have been "turfing people out" on spurious grounds in order to hike rents, and this proposal does seem to be an attempt to stop that.
but as always seems to happen the Govt PBP. takes a sledgehammer to crack a nut, often with many unforeseen consequences, many of which adversly affect the very people they are trying to protect.0 -
every other major city has these issues. The only way to address the rental sector specifically is to incentivise people to both stay in the market and have more people entering it. If you make it worse for ll, which this would do, it will have the opposite effect which in the end will negatively impact the renters.alias no.9 wrote: »A rent index is a measure of the market. The taxation thing could be an additional levy on rents above a certain percentile of the rent index for a given area, it doesn't have to be a discount. It's about discouraging a run away rental market because it presents a danger to the economy, being a landlord doesn't preclude me from recognising that current trends are dangerous.0 -
every other major city has these issues. The only way to address the rental sector specifically is to incentivise people to both stay in the market and have more people entering it. If you make it worse for ll, which this would do, it will have the opposite effect which in the end will negatively impact the renters.
The only fix is to build more. There is a short term risk until supply is brought on and I don't think it's unreasonable to try and reign in rent hikes until then and I don't think that is making things worse for landlords. Headline rents are not currently a problem for landlords, they're at or close to all time highs.
Risks to landlords are non payment and damage to the property or antisocial behaviour along with inability to secure legitimate possession of the property. If you can't see that these risks are exacerbated by a runaway rental market then I'm not sure I can help you.
This is made worse where the government sanctions a scenario where one landlord can charge twice as much as another for identical neighbouring properties. It's **** to be a tenant right now but it's often easier to deal with **** times when you feel you're in it together with your neighbors, with your peers. Bad behaviour often stems from grievances, perceived or real. If you find out your rent is way higher than your neighbour and what's more, the government says it's all above board, that grievance is probably real. How then do you then feel about your landlord, about the property? Do you respect either?0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30614
Just to be clear; is that if I want to sell while they’re still within their lease?
Current lease is up September 30, 2019. If I gave them notice prior to this (30 days, 90 days?) would I still owe them 6 months rent, if the proposed law was in place?
Finally, is there a proposed period after which they’re entitled to this lump sum? E.g. would tenants who’d only been there one year be eligible?
Many thanks.
D.
You can't give notice under a fixed term lease, period.
If a tenant intends to stay beyond a fixed term lease- they are supposed to advise their landlord of such within 30 days of the finish of the fixed term lease- if they do not- they are liable for any reletting costs a landlord may incur.
Irrespective of a fixed term lease- once the tenant has been in a property for 6 months- they acquire all the rights associated with a Part IV tenancy under the Residential Tenancy Act. Nothing in a lease- including get out clauses, or a stipulation that the tenancy is for a fixed period- can impinge on a tenant's rights under the Residential Tenancies Act- and to be brutally honest- once you hit 6 months- your fixed term lease isn't worth the paper its written on.
I haven't seen the wording of the proposed legislation- so I don't know how long a tenant would have to be in a property before they acquire the right to demand a lumpsum from the landlord to leave. While I hate to say it- it sounds like an appalling situation- but its only formalising what is defacto happening on the ground already. A lot of landlords are making large payments to tenants to get them to leave- because they know that the RTB isn't of any use whatsoever if/when they want their property back.
The situation in Ireland has been worsening for landlords for quite some time- proposals like the current regulation- have precisely zero chance of being enacted- however, in some respects are to be welcomed- as they are causing many people to wake up and reappraise the environment in which they are operating.
I don't see it as a negative for 19k second hand units, formally let to tenants- to hit the 'For Sale' market- indeed- presumably a sizeable majority of them will be bought by people who were formally renting units- and thus will be coming owner occupiers for the first time.
Something that isn't being mentioned by anyone- but which I think merits exploration- is the possibility of some sort of a scheme to enable tenants to purchase the property they are renting (providing of course the landlord wishes to sell- there should be no coercion on anyone's part). This would simply codify an equalisation of rights for current tenants- whereby private tenants would acquire some rights that LA/Council tenants currently have. Note- this would have to be structured in such a manner not to impinge on anyone's property rights. Its kind of funny that its not been mentioned thus far. For landlords with more than one unit- who plainly aren't going to be seeking the return of a unit for personal use- it might be an elegant manner in which to exit the sector- perhaps it could be done in a tax efficient/helpful manner- to encourage participation?0 -
It is argued (and I am inclined to agree) that the strong rent control in the San Francisco area is the reason that rents are so high right now. Well, at least, the places available. Folks already in are paying much less.
There is strong disincentive for people who currently rent in San Francisco to either move to a new rental property maybe better suited to their current life style (eg they now have a family, or might want to move closer to their new job), or go buy a house. It makes too much financial sense for them to squeeze their family into the small place they already have, and contribute to the commuting crush the Bay Area is infamous for: If they move, they’ll be paying a ridiculous amount in comparison.
So, they don’t move. This means that the amount of places available for new rent is few, and there is great competition for those few. The prices are insane. Which even further disincentivises folks from leaving their current places. In the meantime, we have tenants paying vastly different prices for similar properties, or landlords prohibited from getting fair market value.
Near as I can tell, the only people who benefit really are current tenants who are in the same life situation as they had when they signed their lease.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »Something that isn't being mentioned by anyone- but which I think merits exploration- is the possibility of some sort of a scheme to enable tenants to purchase the property they are renting (providing of course the landlord wishes to sell- there should be no coercion on anyone's part). This would simply codify an equalisation of rights for current tenants- whereby private tenants would acquire some rights that LA/Council tenants currently have. Note- this would have to be structured in such a manner not to impinge on anyone's property rights. Its kind of funny that its not been mentioned thus far. For landlords with more than one unit- who plainly aren't going to be seeking the return of a unit for personal use- it might be an elegant manner in which to exit the sector- perhaps it could be done in a tax efficient/helpful manner- to encourage participation?
It can and already does happen. The problem with this however is usually the tenant expects to get a discount when it should just be sold at market rate. In my own situation, i noticed a property that was sale agreed for 50k under market rate as the existing tenant wanted it.0 -
Just dont give a lease in September and the lease becomes a month by month lease and you have to work under the rules of the residental tenancies act that is there at the moment.
Keep any eye on the new rules and if this daft thing comes in where you have to give 6months rent the give statutory notice before it comes into law. Get the statutory declaration from rtb website and have it ready to give to the tenant. You need a peace commissioner to witness your signature. Make sure you work out how much notice you have to give from the start of the tenancy.
You will find the form here https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/forms-documents
Am really feeling like an innocent abroad in all of this.
Is it any wonder we have a housing crisis? Where's the incentive to be in this game?
Two things I'm still not clear on...
1. What is this six year period that has been referred to? Do some rights revert to me as landlord after this period?
2. If I don't give them a new lease next September (that would be the start of their 5th year) what residential tenancies act rules would I be operating under if I went month to month?
TBH, I'd re-let this place within 24 hours of advertising it, if they chose to leave. So, I have no concerns on that score. What's killing me is the 4% rise every two years cap (as I understand it) that I seem to be stuck with. It makes every expense I incur very hard to fund. It's let at €1250 p/m. Market value would be about €1500.
Thanks.
D.0 -
currently being discussed on Radio 10
-
Paul Murphy's People Before Profit bill.
Say no more.
Looks like it wont get outta the blocks anyhow, as it's probably unconstitutional.
The Govt. are putting forward their own bill in January, which hopefully will not be so ideologically driven.
Like above poster i'll be watching this like a hawk.0 -
If the would-be buyers are living there, would the house have vacant possession?The_Conductor wrote: »Something that isn't being mentioned by anyone- but which I think merits exploration- is the possibility of some sort of a scheme to enable tenants to purchase the property they are renting (providing of course the landlord wishes to sell- there should be no coercion on anyone's part).
Also, as LL's want the best price for their house, selling it at a set price (not on the open market) would mean that they're not getting the best price.0 -
Am really feeling like an innocent abroad in all of this.
Is it any wonder we have a housing crisis? Where's the incentive to be in this game?
Two things I'm still not clear on...
1. What is this six year period that has been referred to? Do some rights revert to me as landlord after this period?
2. If I don't give them a new lease next September (that would be the start of their 5th year) what residential tenancies act rules would I be operating under if I went month to month?
TBH, I'd re-let this place within 24 hours of advertising it, if they chose to leave. So, I have no concerns on that score. What's killing me is the 4% rise every two years cap (as I understand it) that I seem to be stuck with. It makes every expense I incur very hard to fund. It's let at €1250 p/m. Market value would be about €1500.
Thanks.
D.
If your tenants started out when legislation reflected a 4 year tenancy entitlement, then that's all your tenants are entitled to, if after then they are entitled to 6 years, look up when that change occurred, it seems likely your before that, I would seek advice on it and giving notice so as not to fall foul of the legistlatuon. Any new entitlement would be 6 years tenancy. Hard to say whether the other proposals will become reality but if they do it will be expensive and a hardship to get out of landlording. If they don't materialise and you move tenants on legitimately then you could lose out financially if you don't get rent in or have to sell in advance if what you might have.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement