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

Eviction Ban extended

Options
1…1415171920

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    perfectkama
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    ?


  • Options
    #483
    Blut2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,947 ✭✭✭Blut2


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    It was extended to the first of August


    The rent freeze is only until the first of August (ie a bit more reasonable), but the evictions ban is now all the way until next January according to reports:


    ie:

    https://www.newstalk.com/news/simply-dont-trust-government-terms-renters-eoin-o-broin-1049032


  • Options
    #484
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    Blut2 wrote: »
    The rent freeze is only until the first of August (ie a bit more reasonable), but the evictions ban is now all the way until next January according to reports:


    ie:

    https://www.newstalk.com/news/simply-dont-trust-government-terms-renters-eoin-o-broin-1049032

    You would assume but in Ireland probably hope that the eviction ban would apply only to those who can demonstrate a change in circumstances due to Covid than affects their ability to pay and those due to be evicted pre Covid will now be evicted as will those now engaged in anti social behavior.


  • Options
    #485
    Blut2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,947 ✭✭✭Blut2


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    You would assume but in Ireland probably hope that the eviction ban would apply only to those who can demonstrate a change in circumstances due to Covid than affects their ability to pay and those due to be evicted pre Covid will now be evicted as will those now engaged in anti social behavior.


    No, its just a broad eviction ban. It doesn't require someone to have had a change in circumstances due to covid. Thats why the landlord in Cork with the notorious student property which is hosting all the large house parties that are in the papers at the moment is having so much trouble.


  • Options
    #486
    perfectkama
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    Blut2 wrote: »
    The rent freeze is only until the first of August (ie a bit more reasonable), but the evictions ban is now all the way until next January according to reports:


    ie:

    https://www.newstalk.com/news/simply-dont-trust-government-terms-renters-eoin-o-broin-1049032




    AUGUST 1
    AUGUST 1
    AUGUST !
    AUGUST !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    Blut2 wrote: »
    No, its just a broad eviction ban. It doesn't require someone to have had a change in circumstances due to covid. Thats why the landlord in Cork with the notorious student property which is hosting all the large house parties that are in the papers at the moment is having so much trouble.

    I am taking about the new iteration from Aug 1st which is meant to have protections for landlords and guard against abuse by tenants.


  • Options
    #488
    Crimsonred
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Crimsonred


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    I am taking about the new iteration from Aug 1st which is meant to have protections for landlords and guard against abuse by tenants.

    Darragh O'Brien spoke on the RTE news today about preventing renters "from evictions in certain circumstances" and he also spoke about "balancing the protections of renters at risk with the rights of property owners" so I don't see a blanket ban on evictions until next January being on the cards.

    This proposed legislation is an early test for the new housing minister, let's hope he gets the balance right.


  • Options
    #489
    jrosen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭jrosen


    My prediction is He wont get the balance right, there is too much focus on homelessness, housing shortages and job losses. Anything that seems to protect the landlord or allow the landlord to evict wont go dont well publically.

    No one wants landlords to have rights to evict until of course they are next door to troublesome tenants or they want to buy a house that have tenants who wont move out.


  • Options
    #490
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    He had better get the balance right as these temporary measures will no doubt become permanent. A lot of Landlords will want to leave the market so the effective ban on house sales where there is a sitting tenant will have to end or face a constitutional challenge. Hopefully the state will step in to buy properties from ex landlords or else we may be looking at another housing crisis in the offing.


  • Options
    #491
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    He had better get the balance right as these temporary measures will no doubt become permanent. A lot of Landlords will want to leave the market so the effective ban on house sales where there is a sitting tenant will have to end or face a constitutional challenge. Hopefully the state will step in to buy properties from ex landlords or else we may be looking at another housing crisis in the offing.




    Isnt it funny.
    The state uses legislation to make unprofitable or too risky for landlords to make their investments work. The state increase the hardship every year on them, also making potential new entrants to the market think long and hard about buying in.
    The state then puts up a dam to make sure that all of the people who want to sell cant, and will end up all selling at the same time when the dam is lifted.
    Then eventually the state has heaps of people desperate to sell and then they go in and hoover all of these properties.
    Now that is market manipulation if i ever saw it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    Isnt it funny.
    The state uses legislation to make unprofitable or too risky for landlords to make their investments work. The state increase the hardship every year on them, also making potential new entrants to the market think long and hard about buying in.
    The state then puts up a dam to make sure that all of the people who want to sell cant, and will end up all selling at the same time when the dam is lifted.
    Then eventually the state has heaps of people desperate to sell and then they go in and hoover all of these properties.
    Now that is market manipulation if i ever saw it.

    Accidental LLs will sit on houses where there is no mortgage rather than sell or rent them, keeping them for the next generation. Investors will sell and move into other countries with stronger property rights.

    The Civil Debt (Procedures) Act 2015 allows for though it has not yet being enacted the attachment of debt to wages, but only up to 4K. Which if enacted will encourage people in arrears to get them over the 4K mark.


  • Options
    #493
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    He had better get the balance right as these temporary measures will no doubt become permanent. A lot of Landlords will want to leave the market so the effective ban on house sales where there is a sitting tenant will have to end or face a constitutional challenge. Hopefully the state will step in to buy properties from ex landlords or else we may be looking at another housing crisis in the offing.

    The state can't afford to 'step in and buy properties'- at an average cost of 250k per unit- that means you'll get 4,000 units per billion in expenditure (and thats just the upfront price).

    We've already agreed to borrow a cool 30 billion in 2020 and an additional 12 billion 2021 (presuming things improve)- we have no contingency built in for Brexit any longer- and if rosy projections don't come to pass- we're on a collision course with Europe over a projected budget deficit in 2022 and 2023.

    We don't have the money to go and buy the units that landlords are selling- approx. 6,000 units net per annum - never mind the deluge of units that would hit the market if the regulatory regime became even more onerous.

    The government can't have its cake and eat it.
    If it wants the private sector to fulfill the social housing obligations of the government- it has to allow the private sector to function in a defined regulatory regime where the goalposts aren't moved every wet weekend, and where there is a balance of power between landlords and tenants- and dispute mechanisms that actually work (for both).

    The current system would be funny- only its causing additional hardships for tenants- and simultaneously driving over 6000 landlords to leave the sector altogether per annum.

    Government meddling- is why we have a crisis- additional meddling hasn't solved anything- and having another go at it again- simply isn't going to do anything either.


  • Options
    #494
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The state can't afford to 'step in and buy properties'- at an average cost of 250k per unit- that means you'll get 4,000 units per billion in expenditure (and thats just the upfront price).

    We've already agreed to borrow a cool 30 billion in 2020 and an additional 12 billion 2021 (presuming things improve)- we have no contingency built in for Brexit any longer- and if rosy projections don't come to pass- we're on a collision course with Europe over a projected budget deficit in 2022 and 2023.

    We don't have the money to go and buy the units that landlords are selling- approx. 6,000 units net per annum - never mind the deluge of units that would hit the market if the regulatory regime became even more onerous.

    The government can't have its cake and eat it.
    If it wants the private sector to fulfill the social housing obligations of the government- it has to allow the private sector to function in a defined regulatory regime where the goalposts aren't moved every wet weekend, and where there is a balance of power between landlords and tenants- and dispute mechanisms that actually work (for both).

    The current system would be funny- only its causing additional hardships for tenants- and simultaneously driving over 6000 landlords to leave the sector altogether per annum.

    Government meddling- is why we have a crisis- additional meddling hasn't solved anything- and having another go at it again- simply isn't going to do anything either.

    The state does seem to be planning to buy up housing stock.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/housing-minister-local-authorities-buy-up-new-properties-5155602-Jul2020/

    I am interested where you got the figure for LLs leaving the market and is it a net figure, TIA.


  • Options
    #495
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    I am interested where you got the figure for LLs leaving the market and is it a net figure, TIA.

    Usual source for all of these stats- the RTB annual report.
    Its also been alluded to by Caren Gallagher (RTB head of communications) on RTE drivetime- several times.


  • Options
    #496
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The state can't afford to 'step in and buy properties'- at an average cost of 250k per unit- that means you'll get 4,000 units per billion in expenditure (and thats just the upfront price).

    We've already agreed to borrow a cool 30 billion in 2020 and an additional 12 billion 2021 (presuming things improve)- we have no contingency built in for Brexit any longer- and if rosy projections don't come to pass- we're on a collision course with Europe over a projected budget deficit in 2022 and 2023.

    We don't have the money to go and buy the units that landlords are selling- approx. 6,000 units net per annum - never mind the deluge of units that would hit the market if the regulatory regime became even more onerous.

    The government can't have its cake and eat it.
    If it wants the private sector to fulfill the social housing obligations of the government- it has to allow the private sector to function in a defined regulatory regime where the goalposts aren't moved every wet weekend, and where there is a balance of power between landlords and tenants- and dispute mechanisms that actually work (for both).

    The current system would be funny- only its causing additional hardships for tenants- and simultaneously driving over 6000 landlords to leave the sector altogether per annum.

    Government meddling- is why we have a crisis- additional meddling hasn't solved anything- and having another go at it again- simply isn't going to do anything either.

    in any left wing country , the answer - solution to problems caused by government interference is of course MORE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE


  • Options
    #497
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,231 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    The state does seem to be planning to buy up housing stock.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/housing-minister-local-authorities-buy-up-new-properties-5155602-Jul2020/

    I am interested where you got the figure for LLs leaving the market and is it a net figure, TIA.

    I’m sure all the LAs will be delighted to buy houses, if Minister O’Brien’s department will provide the finance. I doubt many LAs have a few million to spare to buy them.

    I relation to the net figure, I’m searching for the article that was published last week relating to the recent RTB report, it said there was a large decrease in rental properties due to LLs leaving sector, also, there as a report two weeks ago, I linked to it at the time, that there was a huge bottleneck in LL sales due to ban on evictions.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eviction-ban-leads-to-sales-bottleneck-x98thgbtr


  • Options
    #498
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The state can't afford to 'step in and buy properties'- at an average cost of 250k per unit- that means you'll get 4,000 units per billion in expenditure (and thats just the upfront price).

    We've already agreed to borrow a cool 30 billion in 2020 and an additional 12 billion 2021 (presuming things improve)- we have no contingency built in for Brexit any longer- and if rosy projections don't come to pass- we're on a collision course with Europe over a projected budget deficit in 2022 and 2023.

    We don't have the money to go and buy the units that landlords are selling- approx. 6,000 units net per annum - never mind the deluge of units that would hit the market if the regulatory regime became even more onerous.

    The government can't have its cake and eat it.
    If it wants the private sector to fulfill the social housing obligations of the government- it has to allow the private sector to function in a defined regulatory regime where the goalposts aren't moved every wet weekend, and where there is a balance of power between landlords and tenants- and dispute mechanisms that actually work (for both).

    The current system would be funny- only its causing additional hardships for tenants- and simultaneously driving over 6000 landlords to leave the sector altogether per annum.

    Government meddling- is why we have a crisis- additional meddling hasn't solved anything- and having another go at it again- simply isn't going to do anything either.



    Its all about votes and semantics. They want to be seen to do somthing. Its giving the people somthing to chew over. No one wins least of all the landlords who are providing the housing where government have refused to. This issue will not be solved until I'm the issues with tenants can be sorted out quickly and also inforced.


  • Options
    #499
    enricoh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,868 ✭✭✭enricoh


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    Isnt it funny.
    The state uses legislation to make unprofitable or too risky for landlords to make their investments work. The state increase the hardship every year on them, also making potential new entrants to the market think long and hard about buying in.
    The state then puts up a dam to make sure that all of the people who want to sell cant, and will end up all selling at the same time when the dam is lifted.
    Then eventually the state has heaps of people desperate to sell and then they go in and hoover all of these properties.
    Now that is market manipulation if i ever saw it.

    And then they do surveys of why landlords are leaving the sector in their droves. And they wonder why more and more people require the state to pay for their housing.
    Every year in the last 10 they made it less attractive to be a landlord and more attractive for tenants to get state subsided housing!
    What could possibly go wrong!!


  • Options
    #500
    blowin3
    Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭blowin3


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    You would assume but in Ireland probably hope that the eviction ban would apply only to those who can demonstrate a change in circumstances due to Covid than affects their ability to pay and those due to be evicted pre Covid will now be evicted as will those now engaged in anti social behavior.

    Where did you get this info please. We have a house rented next to us which has been hell for 3 years. The landlord served 6 months notice which ran out July 1 but the landlord says they have to stay due to amnesty. They are still causing havoc and hassling neighbors.


  • Options
    #501
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    According to the SBP today, the blanket eviction ban is to end and renters who self declare that they have lost income since Covid began will be excluded from the ban, it will be a criminal offence to make a false self declaration. It appears that renters will not have to support their declaration with vouchers/documents because the government don't want to cause difficulties for renters. I predict a riot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    if they thought we had a rental shortage before, the second this ends its going to be tenants out the door, landlords leaving property empty en masse and getting completely out of the market.


  • Options
    #503
    mel123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭mel123


    Can someone clarify for me please. Example, if my tenant has been made redundant due to Covid, i cant serve her with an eviction notice until January 1st, is that correct? If she is to get 7 months notice, can i serve the notice now so she will be ready to vacate on time?
    Perhaps i am picking it up wrong, but it seems strange if they have been effected by Covid, they cant be evicted, and if they have not been effected they can be served eviction notice.
    No thought obviously if the LL has been effected by Covid and needs their property back!


  • Options
    #504
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    mel123 wrote: »
    Can someone clarify for me please. Example, if my tenant has been made redundant due to Covid, i cant serve her with an eviction notice until January 1st, is that correct? If she is to get 7 months notice, can i serve the notice now so she will be ready to vacate on time?
    Perhaps i am picking it up wrong, but it seems strange if they have been effected by Covid, they cant be evicted, and if they have not been effected they can be served eviction notice.
    No thought obviously if the LL has been effected by Covid and needs their property back!

    Sorry Mel- you can serve notice whenever you like- but it is on hold until such time as the eviction ban ends. So- if the tenant is entitled to 7 months notice, but has been affected by Covid (financially) they are entitled to 7 month's notice from the 1st of Jan- bringing them up July 2021..........

    Whether or not they are affected by Covid financially (or not) is whats key here. Also- the tenant *has* to register themselves as affected financially by Covid with the RTB- if they intend to invoke the protections envisaged under the measure- they can't just tell you- its a formal notification by the tenant to the RTB.

    Personally I expect very few tenants to register with the RTB- many may not be aware that they have to if they wish to invoke the eviction ban- but even if they do- the rent can still go up from 1st August anyway.

    So- I suspect its actually going to be fairly meaningless.


  • Options
    #505
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭The Student


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Sorry Mel- you can serve notice whenever you like- but it is on hold until such time as the eviction ban ends. So- if the tenant is entitled to 7 months notice, but has been affected by Covid (financially) they are entitled to 7 month's notice from the 1st of Jan- bringing them up July 2021..........

    Whether or not they are affected by Covid financially (or not) is whats key here. Also- the tenant *has* to register themselves as affected financially by Covid with the RTB- if they intend to invoke the protections envisaged under the measure- they can't just tell you- its a formal notification by the tenant to the RTB.

    Personally I expect very few tenants to register with the RTB- many may not be aware that they have to if they wish to invoke the eviction ban- but even if they do- the rent can still go up from 1st August anyway.

    So- I suspect its actually going to be fairly meaningless.

    If someone is affected by covid and the eviction ban is in force is there anything for the landlord if tenants underpay the rent?


  • Options
    #506
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Sorry Mel- you can serve notice whenever you like- but it is on hold until such time as the eviction ban ends. So- if the tenant is entitled to 7 months notice, but has been affected by Covid (financially) they are entitled to 7 month's notice from the 1st of Jan- bringing them up July 2021..........

    Whether or not they are affected by Covid financially (or not) is whats key here. Also- the tenant *has* to register themselves as affected financially by Covid with the RTB- if they intend to invoke the protections envisaged under the measure- they can't just tell you- its a formal notification by the tenant to the RTB.

    Personally I expect very few tenants to register with the RTB- many may not be aware that they have to if they wish to invoke the eviction ban- but even if they do- the rent can still go up from 1st August anyway.

    So- I suspect its actually going to be fairly meaningless.
    So lets say a tenant registers with the RTB that they have been financially affected by the pandemic and therefore cannot pay all or part of their rent
    They cannot be evicted until July 2021.
    What would be the point in serving a rent increase notice.
    If they cannot afford 1750 a month they can hardly afford to pay 1785 a month
    Secondly will the RTB look for proof that the tenant is financially affected or will they just take them at their word ie self declaration


  • Options
    #507
    Manion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭Manion


    The_Conductor wrote: »

    Personally I expect very few tenants to register with the RTB- many may not be aware that they have to if they wish to invoke the eviction ban- but even if they do- the rent can still go up from 1st August anyway.

    I've looked back through the thread but cannot find it, is there a link somewhere outlining the responsibilities of tenants and landlords under the new covid rules and what those rules are? I don't doubt what you're saying at all but I'm struggling to find the primary sources.


  • Options
    #508
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Phishnet wrote: »
    I hope some private property owner who rents his/her property takes an action against the State. The blanket ban on evictions is unconstitutional regarding private property, the Government (and I use the term very loosely) knows this and is crossing its fingers hoping no one brings such an action. Will the Irish State compensate a property owner for a tenant who refuses to pay rent, saying that they can't due to covid ? The Government is gifting these tenants 350 euro a week. The State can't butter their bread on both sides and not expect sticky fingers. What a con job.

    Unfortunately only scroungers and dirtbags qualify for legal aid.
    The cost of Court action against the government makes this almost impossible.


  • Options
    #509
    david72jenkins
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭david72jenkins


    The bill can be interpreted as ambiguous in places, does the passing of the bill mean the end to the 'emergency measures'?

    With respect to self declaration, I believe it will be a criminal offence to make a false declaration.


  • Options
    #510
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    The Student wrote: »
    If someone is affected by covid and the eviction ban is in force is there anything for the landlord if tenants underpay the rent?

    They can lodge a case with the RTB- as they always could do- only they can't terminate the tenancy until such time as full and valid notice has been served on the tenant. If the tenant pleads penury- an inability to pay- the landlord could potentially pursue they regardless and get some silly low amount awarded to them over a long period of time- until such time as the debt was paid off- but its simply not worth the cost of pursing such a case for most landlords (unless they are really annoyed with the tenant, in which case they might pursue it anyway- just to get their own back on the tenant......... it happens..........)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    brisan wrote: »
    So lets say a tenant registers with the RTB that they have been financially affected by the pandemic and therefore cannot pay all or part of their rent
    They cannot be evicted until July 2021.
    What would be the point in serving a rent increase notice.
    If they cannot afford 1750 a month they can hardly afford to pay 1785 a month
    Secondly will the RTB look for proof that the tenant is financially affected or will they just take them at their word ie self declaration

    The point is that a rent review can still take place- just because you're not going to be able to collect it, doesn't mean you should forego the process- esp. as if rents get locked again- wouldn't a landlord be better off locked on a higher official rent- than a lower one?

    Populist measures could include a ban on rent increases for 2 years from 1st Jan 2021, to 1st Jan 2023 (the suggestion is the 4% increase could be removed altogether from the equation- the justification being that inflation is in negative territory anyway).

    So- it could very well be worth a landlord's while to proceed with a rent review- even if he/she knows the tenant can't afford it (and even if they agree not to pursue the tenant for it).


Advertisement