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

Covid tenant issues.

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,271 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Again, you are wrong. It is not NEEDED for family use, its WANTED for family use, as a temporary holiday home. That is not a valid reason for eviction under the rules.

    It’s Needed.


  • Options
    #33
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    ted1 wrote: »
    It’s Needed.


    It's not though. Nobody needs a holiday home.


  • Options
    #34
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    It's not though. Nobody needs a holiday home.

    Not even the tenant?


  • Options
    #35
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,271 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    It's not though. Nobody needs a holiday home.

    They need it to live in for several months.


  • Options
    #36
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    ted1 wrote: »
    They need it to live in for several months.


    They want to live in it not need
    They could just stay where they spend the other 9 months of the year unless they have rented that out for 3 months


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,019 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    ted1 wrote: »
    They need it to live in for several months.

    I would imagine that to be a tough sell, it says they look forward to going there every year. It sounds like an elective move rather than a necessary one.


  • Options
    #38
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,271 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I would imagine that to be a tough sell, it says they look forward to going there every year. It sounds like an elective move rather than a necessary one.
    It’s needed for the family. When are moves not elective?
    You could say that sons and daughters elect to go to go college so don’t need the family apartment near the college.


  • Options
    #39
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,019 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    ted1 wrote: »
    It’s needed for the family. When are moves not elective?
    You could say that sons and daughters elect to go to go college so don’t need the family apartment near the college.

    I suppose if there was a dispute you would have to put your case to the RTB as to why you needed it. I suspect a close family member needing it when going to college rather than having to rent another property would be looked on more favourably than a couple wanting to go to their holiday home every year for 3 months while still having their own home to live in the other 9.


  • Options
    #40
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    The RTB are never going to accept that it is "needed for family use" when its for use as a holiday home. That is not a need. It's not comparable to living in it to go to college, at all.

    Nobody "needs" a holiday home, when they already have a home. You don't get to turf a tenant out of their legal home so you can go on holiday.


  • Options
    #41
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    The RTB are never going to accept that it is "needed for family use" when its for use as a holiday home. That is not a need. It's not comparable to living in it to go to college, at all.

    Nobody "needs" a holiday home, when they already have a home. You don't get to turf a tenant out of their legal home so you can go on holiday.

    In the good old days landlords could do whatever the hell they wanted to
    Some lads miss those days


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,019 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    brisan wrote: »
    In the good old days landlords could do whatever the hell they wanted to
    Some lads miss those days

    This isn’t the typical LL - Tenant situation though. The tenant knew from the outset that the agreement was for 9 months only and that the owner wanted use of the holiday home for the other 3 months. In this case, the owner wants only what was agreed, unfortunately, whether through ignorance of the relevant law, or misjudging the type of person they were renting to, they find that the agreement is not being honoured and they cannot use their house.


  • Options
    #43
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The knock on effect of this will be people will keep property empty than do short lets, in a housing crisis.

    In fact people won't re-purpose any other type of accommodation for long term lets, due to overstays.


  • Options
    #44
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    Dav010 wrote: »
    This isn’t the typical LL - Tenant situation though. The tenant knew from the outset that the agreement was for 9 months only and that the owner wanted use of the holiday home for the other 3 months. In this case, the owner wants only what was agreed, unfortunately, whether through ignorance of the relevant law, or misjudging the type of person they were renting to, they find that the agreement is not being honoured and they cannot use their house.


    The landlord should have known that it didn't matter if the tenancy was for 9 months, the tenant acquired part4 rights after 6 months.

    There's too much judgement about the tenant, of whom we know nothing, there is every reason to think they had good intentions to leave after 9 months, but covid has made changes for a lot of people. It's likely their position changed. All the did is what they were legally allowed to do.

    The tenant MAY be in the wrong, we don't know. We DO know the landlord was defintely in the wrong.


  • Options
    #45
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    beauf wrote: »
    The knock on effect of this will be people will keep property empty than do short lets, in a housing crisis.

    In fact people won't re-purpose any other type of accommodation for long term lets, due to overstays.

    Short lets are of no use in a housing crisis. Homeless people don't want a 6 month or 9 month rental, they want a home.
    There is no knock on effect from this other to reinforce part4 rights for tenants, which is only right.

    What does it have to do with repurposing for long term lets?


  • Options
    #46
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Blows this out of the water...

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/vacant-property-owners-need-to-answer-ireland-s-call-1.4213995

    If you don't want a short term let, don't move into one. Its the Govt remit to provide long term social housing.

    People are starting to be asked for 3 and 4 months rent as a deposit. Which is the norm in some countries. But this is likely to become more common.


  • Options
    #47
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    The landlord should have known that it didn't matter if the tenancy was for 9 months, the tenant acquired part4 rights after 6 months.

    There's too much judgement about the tenant, of whom we know nothing, there is every reason to think they had good intentions to leave after 9 months, but covid has made changes for a lot of people. It's likely their position changed. All the did is what they were legally allowed to do.

    The tenant MAY be in the wrong, we don't know. We DO know the landlord was defintely in the wrong.

    When covid happened, tourism collapsed. There was empty tourism accommodation all over the place. Any overseas workers moved home instantly, as did students.
    You can imagine it was hard to find any alternatives at that time.

    So looking like no holidays for 6 yrs so. Is that the only time the LL can end the tenancy. Might as well sell it.


  • Options
    #48
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    beauf wrote: »
    Blows this out of the water...

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/vacant-property-owners-need-to-answer-ireland-s-call-1.4213995

    If you don't want a short term let, don't move into one. Its the Govt remit to provide long term social housing.

    People are starting to be asked for 3 and 4 months rent as a deposit. Which is the norm in some countries. But this is likely to become more common.

    people may be asked fo4r 3 or 4 months deposit but I doubt very much many will agree to it when the vast majority of rentals only ask for 1 month


  • Options
    #49
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Things change


  • Options
    #50
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    beauf wrote: »
    Blows this out of the water...

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/vacant-property-owners-need-to-answer-ireland-s-call-1.4213995

    If you don't want a short term let, don't move into one. Its the Govt remit to provide long term social housing.

    People are starting to be asked for 3 and 4 months rent as a deposit. Which is the norm in some countries. But this is likely to become more common.

    You might want a short term let and then some unexpected thing could happen, you know like a global pandemic that changed life as we know it for many people? Do you find it so hard to imagine that someones plans to move out changed, and they had no choice but to stay (which they were legally fine to do so)?


  • Options
    #51
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,019 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    The landlord should have known that it didn't matter if the tenancy was for 9 months, the tenant acquired part4 rights after 6 months.

    There's too much judgement about the tenant, of whom we know nothing, there is every reason to think they had good intentions to leave after 9 months, but covid has made changes for a lot of people. It's likely their position changed. All the did is what they were legally allowed to do.

    The tenant MAY be in the wrong, we don't know. We DO know the landlord was defintely in the wrong.

    The LL should have known, but no doubt he/she thought they were dealing with an honourable person who would leave at the agreed time. Lesson learned, I doubt he/she will let their house again.

    We know that the tenant knew it was a letting for 9 months only, the tenant is relying on legal entitlement rather than the terms they agreed with the owner.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    You might want a short term let and then some unexpected thing could happen, you know like a global pandemic that changed life as we know it for many people? Do you find it so hard to imagine that someones plans to move out changed, and they had no choice but to stay (which they were legally fine to do so)?

    Global epidemic increased the supply of rentals and holiday homes. So saying couldn't find anything else doesn''t add up. Not that it matters, they are not obliged to give a reason.. The LL is, the tenant isn't.

    Forget short term lets. They simply no longer exist.

    I'll ask the question again. Based on the current legislation and information we have in this thread. When can the LL get the property back legally. If they can't use need it back as a reason.


  • Options
    #53
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    Dav010 wrote: »
    The LL should have known, but no doubt he/she thought they were dealing with an honourable person who would leave at the agreed time. Lesson learned, I doubt he/she will let their house again.

    We know that the tenant knew it was a letting for 9 months only, the tenant is relying on legal entitlement rather than the terms they agreed with the owner.

    Honourable person? Get over yourself. If they lost their job they wouldn't be able to get a new rental, should they make themselves intentionally homeless so that clueless landlord doesn't miss his holiday?


  • Options
    #54
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    beauf wrote: »
    Global epidemic increased the supply of rentals and holiday homes. So saying couldn't find anything else doesn''t add up. Not that it matters, they are not obliged to give a reason.. The LL is, the tenant isn't.

    Forget short term lets. They simply no longer exist.

    I'll ask the question again. Based on the current legislation and information we have in this thread. When can the LL get the property back legally. If they can't use need it back as a reason.

    The landlord has to say they want it for their own use and for how long. If it becomes available after they have finished using it and less than 6 months has elapsed since the tenant vacated, they have to offer the premises back to the same tenant again. I doubt if the scenario outlined in the newspaper is from a real-life situation. Most likely it has been published to draw attention to a potential problem.


  • Options
    #55
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    beauf wrote: »
    Global epidemic increased the supply of rentals and holiday homes. So saying couldn't find anything else doesn''t add up. Not that it matters, they are not obliged to give a reason.. The LL is, the tenant isn't.

    Global pandemic means lots of lost jobs. Lost job means no new rental, it doesn't matter if there are more of them if you can't secure one.
    Do try to look at things from more than one very basic angle.


  • Options
    #56
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,019 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    beauf wrote: »
    Global epidemic increased the supply of rentals and holiday homes. So saying couldn't find anything else doesn''t add up. Not that it matters, they are not obliged to give a reason.. The LL is, the tenant isn't.

    Forget short term lets. They simply no longer exist.

    I'll ask the question again. Based on the current legislation and information we have in this thread. When can the LL get the property back legally. If they can't use need it back as a reason.

    In reality, if they continue to pay rent, sometime in late 2025, early 2926, unless they decide to sell or do a major refurbishment.


  • Options
    #57
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    beauf wrote: »
    I'll ask the question again. Based on the current legislation and information we have in this thread. When can the LL get the property back legally. If they can't use need it back as a reason.

    How long is a piece of string? How determined is the tenant to hang on and use the legal system to its maximum? If the tenant got very awkward it could take several years. Adjudication at the RTB, appeal to the Tribunal, appeal on a point of law to the High Court, resisted enforcement in the District Court, appeal that to the Circuit Court possibly a judicial review of the District Court for the Circuit Court thrown in, with appeals to the Court of Appeal for good measure.


  • Options
    #58
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Global pandemic means lots of lost jobs. Lost job means no new rental, it doesn't matter if there are more of them if you can't secure one.
    Do try to look at things from more than one very basic angle.

    No mention of lost jobs.

    Based the facts given. The only reason given is unable to "Find" anything else. Which seems unlikely.

    You're only looking at this from a narrow view point. It has wider repercussions across the entire market.

    Like in Berlin RPZ fixed one problem but causes a load of other ones. Arguably worse.


  • Options
    #59
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,019 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    beauf wrote: »
    No mention of lost jobs.

    Based the facts given. The only reason given is unable to "Find" anything else. Which seems unlikely.

    Where is the house?


  • Options
    #60
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Dav010 wrote: »
    In reality, if they continue to pay rent, sometime in late 2025, early 2026, unless they decide to sell or do a major refurbishment.

    2026 I assume you meant.

    Exactly. They could argue they have to renew the tenancy unless they have a "valid" reason to get it back. Holiday home not being enough of a reason.

    They were talking about removing the ability of a landlord to end a tenancy for any reason. Maybe it's already here.

    Interesting to see what effect this has on supply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Where is the house?

    Does it matter? Half the country went on staycation all over the country once restrictions lifted. They didn't seem to have a problem finding places. But that's not the issue.

    What's interesting is the wider repercussions.


Advertisement