Sheeps wrote: » That's the way it is now. Things are so heavily stacked in favor of landlords and the banks.
JJJackal wrote: » In my opinion, the current policies benefit no one and are stacked against all 3 of these parties Tenants: no security of tenure, can be evicted easily, low supply Landlords: can have 2 identical properties in one estate - rent on one 900/month; rent on the other 1600/month. Costs 1000s to evict an unruly or nonpaying tenant Banks: very difficult to repossess houses of people who have not paid their mortgages in years thus driving up interest rates for tenants who are renting and thus makes buying a home more unaffordable Am I wrong?
JJJackal wrote: » 2012 is just a bad time point to compare how expensive houses are now
Mad_maxx wrote: » Tenants have robust security of tenure and are extremely difficult to evict, much more difficult than in most European countries That myth seems to be ingrained such is the level of anti landlord media coverage
Sheeps wrote: » We have a broken housing sector where rents are at an all time record high, tenants have no security, house prices are not in any way affordable, interest rates are the highest across Europe, we're not building enough private or public housing and there's no hope for the market to meet demand, traditional banks have too much of the market share in mortgages. The time for a brand new set of housing policies is now, and none of what you're charging Sinn Féin's policy on housing with is correct.
JJJackal wrote: » My point is current policies benefit no one. Compared to some European countries eg Belgium tenants have no security of tenure.
pyramuid man wrote: » What is incorrect about it exactly? If a bank cannot repossess a property when a person defaults, who do you think pays for that? Mortgage holders do with increased rates. When tenants cant be evicted when they so paying rent, where is the supply of new rental properties going to come from? And finally, if a builder can't make money from developing houses and selling them, who is going to build the new houses? Like it or not, the "broken housing sector" won't get any better. Irish mortgage holders and tenants are among the best protected in the world and this is contributing to the problems we are seeing now. I agree that there should be protections for vulnerable people and there should be a fair process but the odds are stacked completely against the banks and landlords and everyone else is suffering for it. Sinn fein would only increase the so called protections that are crippling the market.
Mad_maxx wrote: » You said tenants can be evicted easily, that is profoundly untrue
sweetie wrote: » tenants can overhold and hang on for months and years rent free. How is that in favour of the landlords?
Sheeps wrote: » There are issues for all three legs of the stool, but the repercussions for the tenant are by far the greatest. The landlord can sell the property and move on, the banks pass on the expense on somewhere else, but the tenant ends up having to move or worst case ends up presenting as homeless. I'm not saying they're not all serious issues, but for there are ways of addressing them all, and again the only way of doing so is a change of policy. None of Sinn Féin's policies favor one over the other. On banks, their policy for Sinn Féin is to stop the bank selling the loss to vulture funds, which is a recommendation from the central bank, not being proposed as legislation. This forces the bank to repossess the home instead of cooking their books, and with models like the mortgage-to-rent scheme that allow people where the banks have foreclosed on their home to continue to stay in the home renting. The bank retains the asset, the person remains in the home, and continues to generate income on the loan, reducing the bad debt. The house can eventually be sold by the bank. Regarding Landlords and Tenants, all Sinn Féin want to do seems to be provide more security of tenure for tenants which is fair given that landlords have received in tax write offs. Furthermore they want to execute a massive policy of building public and affordable housing. This will reduce demand on the rental sector and will eventually result in RPZ's being removed. Unless supply is met and prices start to fall, the RPZ's are here to stay.
Sheeps wrote: » That's simply not true. If you miss even one months rent, you can be evicted.
JJJackal wrote: » How can the landlord sell if he cant evict the tenant? SF want the LL to compensate the tenant if evicted for sale. SF policies favour the tenant imo. The loans are sold to vulture funds because Irish banks cannot or will not repossess property by and large. As the Irish tax payers has shares in a number of banks, the irish tax payer is funding the non performing loans. Not all mortgage holders will engage. Banks are businesses too (something to bear in mind). Obviously homelessness is horrific and I have empathy for anyone facing homelessness. When sold to vulture funds the same terms and conditions that were in place at the time you took out the mortgage are still in place. Landlords have received tax write offs - please discuss. Who is going to fund the massive policy of house building? I suspect SF wont remove RPZs either way - but lets wait and see on that one
JJJackal wrote: » And if the tenant decides not to move and not to pay what happens?
Sheeps wrote: » Assuming your eviction was legal, and you've exhausted your options with the RTB the next stage would be to obtain a court order to have the tenant evicted. How is this not acceptable in the event of this extremely rare scenario?
Sheeps wrote: » There are issues for all three legs of the stool, but the repercussions for the tenant are by far the greatest. The landlord can sell the property and move on, the banks pass on the expense on somewhere else, but the tenant ends up having to move or worst case ends up presenting as homeless. I'm not saying they're not all serious issues, but there are ways of addressing them all, and again the only way of doing so is a change of policy. None of Sinn Féin's policies favor one over the other. On banks, their policy is to stop the bank selling the loss to vulture funds, which is a consumer protection recommendation from the central bank, now being proposed as legislation. Furthermore this is supported by Fianna Fáil. This forces the bank to repossess the home instead of cooking their books, and with models like the mortgage-to-rent scheme that allow people where the banks have foreclosed on their home to continue to stay in the home renting. The bank retains the asset, the person remains in the home, and continues to generate income on the loan, reducing the bad debt. The house can eventually be sold by the bank. Regarding Landlords and Tenants, all Sinn Féin want to do seems to be provide more security of tenure for tenants which is fair given that landlords have received in tax write offs. Furthermore they want to execute a massive policy of building public and affordable housing. This will reduce demand on the rental sector and will eventually result in RPZ's being removed. Unless supply is met and prices start to fall, the RPZ's are here to stay.
Fol20 wrote: » Completely lost faith in your statement when you said sf policys dont favour one over the other. Your entire opinion is severely one sided. Their fluff pieces appears like they favour the tenant but in the end it will hurt the tenants along with everyone else. Please point out how they are neutral as everything you posted suggests nothing to favour banks or ll. You mentioned they want to excute mass large scale policy for building houses. Where will they get this money. I want to buy a ferrari but i cant afford it. Providing more security for tenants is fair -how? Take a look at the past 5 years of legislation, what is fair about all the anti ll stuff that has come out with nothing in return. The uninttended consequences of this is we are now seeing a declining supply of rentals at a time when rents are at their highest. Who looses from this, you guessed it tenants. You say its a change of policy. I see it as more of the same, making the market more dysfunctional which will hurt all alike. Even with banks. If a bank reposses a house. It should be their choice for whom they let it to. The responsibility of not paying your debt should never be forced upon ll, banks or other tenants that are paying for their debt. It should only be bourne on the person that is doing what they signed up for. Tenants that dont pay rent should be kicked out. Ll and tenants that dont pay their mortgage should be out. This would make life much better for all as rates would be cheaper so better for tenants. Risk and legal costs for babks would be less. Ll risk would also decline.
Sheeps wrote: » The Tyrrelstown amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act allows you to evict in the case where a tenancy would cause undue hardship to the seller.
Sheeps wrote: » Loans can still be sold off to vulture funds with Sinn Féin's policy should the consumer agree. All this forces the bank to do is find someone who's not just intent on evicting the mortgage holder, and is willing to renegotiation. Failing that the bank can simply renegotiate the terms, or in the event of where a mortgage holder is not cooperating, can take them to court and have the home repossessed.
Sheeps wrote: » Building public housing is an investment, and will pay for itself by simply reducing the growing reliance on the failure that is the HAP scheme. They're also to scrap people being able to purchase the public houses they live in at huge discounts, recognizing that this Thatcherite policy is completely ridiculous. Affordable houses should pay for themselves.
Sheeps wrote: » Radical change is needed.
Sheeps wrote: » If the system is already stacked in favor of the banks, acting in favor of a the tenant only equalizes things. Were talking about a basic level of consumer protection here, against institutions making massive massive un-taxed profits on unfair terms. You're making it sound like the banks are victims of consumer protection.
seasidedub wrote: » Reading back on this thread seeing predictions is amusing..... market will dive bomb, don't buy etc. A house I've been (unsuccessfully) bidding on has gone sale agreed for 200k more then it was sold for as a new build in 2017...... Even if you have to pay CGT, tidy profit for less than 24 months. Of course only really helps if you're downsizing or moving to a cheaper area as otherwise you need the same or more to buy a similar property
Fol20 wrote: » Take a look at what i said again. I didnt say it was stacked in favour of banks. I think a lot of mob mentality legislation is out that appears to favour tenants but hurts everyone. Every piece of legislation that comes in will impact others which will have consequences. Please tell me why we have the highest mortgage rates in EU? What basic level of consumer protection do you want to bring in? If it is about giving tenants more rights, then its more of the same of what they have beening doing and that clearly isnt working.if supply is declining, you want to entice more into the market, not scare them away and also make existing ll go as well. All businesses aim to make profit. I dont see a problem with that. The company you work for wouldnt employ you if they are not making a profit so why should banks be no different
Fol20 wrote: » Selling a property with tenants in situ does cause undo hardship. The seller will be forced to sell the property for less that they could get if it was vacant. How do you not see that? Are you trolling? How about im your boss. You could achieve a salary of 60k but im telling you im only going to give you 50k and you have no choice but to bend over and accept it. Is that fair? Thats basically what your saying should happen.
Sheeps wrote: » I said it was stacked in favor of banks. The basic levels of consumer protection I'm in favor of is banks having to obtain permission from the mortgage holder in order to sell their mortgage to a third party. In many cases the bank that is being sold the debt, will be willing to restructure, but often in others, the consumer will end up having no options. That's a key piece of consumer protection legislation that will make meaningful difference to mortgage holders in distress trying to pay back their mortgages in arrears, whilst also forcing the banks to repossess property from those who don't engage and retain the security, rather than being forced in to discounting the debt to get it off their books so they can look good. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be able to make a profit. I am arguing however that consumer rights and consumer protection is an important part of the profit making process.
