Only in Ireland. How can that be possible that you own a place and you are not allowed to access your own home because of a stupid ban. It is her own home.
This law is bordering on insanity. And somehow dictatorship.
Pretty soon, there will be no landlords left, none.
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2022/12/12/landlord-couch-surfing-and-sleeping-in-car-due-to-winter-eviction-ban/
The issue is once she rented it out it ceased to be her “home” and became someone else’s home. Reading between the lines it seems as if she didn’t issue the proper notice and that, in the interim, an eviction ban came into place. This is very hard on her and not really foreseeable.
"Landlord can't evict tenant from their home onto the street until next year as they didn't follow the legal process correctly"
Everything is on the tenants side unfortunately. The home owner has very little rights as it is now the tenants home and with the way things are going she might never be able to move back in.
You can't do short term lets anymore. You'd be better leaving a place empty if you are away for short time.
I hope she finds somewhere to stay soon.
She issued notice in July! She gave ample notice to her tenants of her intention to re-occupy her apartment. In fact, if the tenants had only been in the apartment 12 months or so then she gave in excess of the minimum notice as prescribed by the PTRB. The government changed the rules in the interim in a blatant cover up of their own inability to provide social and affordable housing. Now they're using small landlords as a mud flap to save political face. It's grim.
And yet there are commentators on here who defend this blatant political stunt. Appears from my reading that this homeowner played by the rules but the government pulled the rug out from under her. Classic FF populism that will end in a bigger mess than it was designed to solve.
I think that's what is going to happen. Owners will leave places empty for fear of not getting them back
It's an asset worth hundreds of thousands. People should educate themselves as to the consequences of making decisions related to such an asset. Rules and regulations evolve and change but it is up to individuals to keep abreast of such changes.
There are plenty of regular contributors on here who still can't seem to get it into their heads that there are rules. The OP posts a lot on these threads but is still amazed that a person who doesn't follow the correct procedure can't just violate someone else's rights because they feel like it. The steps are laid out. If you mess up then you mess up.
She followed the correct procedure at the time in July. In fact, it seems that she went above and beyond the minimum. The goalposts were shifted by the government, there was little the homeowner could do to predict that. She's not clairvoyant.
The housing situation is not being improved by the winter eviction ban. It's just shifting the problem to small landlords who are being used as cannot fodder by the government to save themselves from the rise of SF.
I rented a house in the past belong to someone who moved to the UK for work. If they had given me the minimum notice outlined in my tenancy agreement I'd have had to vacate. Tough sh1t, it's not my house. I had to do so once when the owner of a property I was renting passed away. I got the minimum notice per the tenancy agreement and had to find an alternative. It wasn't my house. A family member was left the property and chose to move in themselves rather than rent it out. None of my business.
Either we want property ownership rights in Ireland or we don't, time to sh1t or get off the pot. And face the real root cause of the problem. The government gave up on social housing for 25 years during a period of population growth.
I had a post previously regarding same, family member still so relieved that it worked out. If it was now they would be couch surfing or homeless
There is no point getting angry over it. The rules are the rules. There is one house and two people who want to live in it. It is one person's legal property but it is the other person's home because the former granted the latter possession in return for money. That's the beginning and end of it.
Property ownership rights are not affected in any way, shape, or form.
That's the point rules are not the rules. They keep changing.
My parents have stopped renting out their second property and now leave it vacant, only using it once in a while for a few days...
Why would you bother with these new rental rules and outrageous tax grab, unless you were desperate...
Same in any business. All rules change. It's a bit naive to think that they never can.
One issue with getting your name in the paper like that is that a person could get themselves in trouble for not employing the services of a collection agent or having the tenant withold and remit 20% of the rent if the owner was non-resident (If you hadn't done so)
This idea of the renter acquiring a "home" when they rent a property, is the central issue. Not every Landlord wants an indefinite tenancy. There has to be a mechanism (after due notice) to end a tenancy in a reasonable timeframe. Failing to do so takes much needed supply out of the market. Responsibility to provide a "home" is not a landlords responsibility - and we should not expect this.
You're being facetious. The homeowner did grant possession of her home to her tenants in exchange for money, but also under the conditions of the tenancy agreement and PTRB rules at the time of the tenancy commencing. The government, at short notice, chnage those conditions unilaterally.
Put yourself in the homeowners shoes. She played by the rules and finds herself homeless. Why would any homeowner rent out their property now? A sabbatical opportunity abroad may come up at work. Who would take one now and rent out their home while away?
The social contract with respect to housing is broken on all fronts now. Tenants are sh*gged because the government didn't adequately plan housing for a growing population. And home owners and small landlords are being ridden now to try to cover that up.
And some seem to revel in the fact that landlords are being shafted, even though it's solving nothing. Until public attitudes to housing change we're doomed to be in an endless cycle of problems.
The mechanisms are spelled out in the legislation. This homeless homeowner will be able to regain possession of their property around March or maybe April of next year. That's fairly reasonable
The tenant does not accrue any rights until 6 months.
If you consider that you might want to go abroad or travel then you should take that into consideration before deciding to make a long-term life decision. I have made that point on many threads where people go on about why renting is "dead money" etc. If you don't want to tie yourself down, then don't make a decision that will tie you down. If you think you want to take a year out to go backpacking around the world next year on your own, maybe don't get married this year etc. etc.
Unless the government change the rules again, and she can't.
That's the risk ya take.
You're dodging the issue here. People rent out their property, in good faith, in accordance with the law of the land at the time of commencing the rental agreement. The government then decided to save face and burn the small landlords. What is your take on that?
If everyone was to follow your advice there wouldn't be a property for rent in the country. There would be too much risk attached for anyone to rent out a property.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the landlord must take on so much risk surely by the same logic the tenant too must acknowledge the risk of renting. A tenant doesn't own the property and can be asked to vacate at any time by the landlord once sufficient notice is given.
At the time the rental agreement was entered between the parties, the mechanisms and legislation was different.
Giving notice in July 2022 which will not give repossession of the property until April 2023 at the earliest ... I dont think thats reasonable after 1 year renting.
Would you be in favour of the government rolling back some of the protections afforded to tenants? For example, shortening the notice periods and allowing the landlord to terminate at more frequent points in the lease?
So the smart choice is not to take the risk.
https://www.joe.ie/news/record-rent-increases-shortage-rental-homes-759987
Less people are taking the risk now, resulting in less property for rent.
Or I suppose, they could increase the price to make the risk worthwhile.
Neither scenario is beneficial to the tenants.
Well the smart choice would be not to keep your capital locked up in an asset which needs maintenance if you are unable to manage it so that it can produce an income for you.
One possible solution would be to liquidate that asset and put the capital elsewhere. Another one would be to learn how to manage it. Leaving is sitting there would not be a "smart choice". But it would be up to you to decide. And bear in mind that we have established that rules can change. So there would be a possibility that you would end up subject to a vacant house levy. Again your choice though whether to keep the property or not.
Or the property could be sold to someone else who can actually manage it properly and doesn't need to charge as much to make it work.
To be fair it's the equivalent to fifa changing football rules numerous times during a football match. Nobody can keep up with the constantly changing landscape anymore. There is confusion from tenants, landlords and the RTB.
When the government introduced the eviction ban they should have given landlords sufficient notice just like landlords need to give sufficient notice to tenants when ending a tenancy, or given the landlords the option to end a tenancy if they do not agree to new terms imposed by the state.
There is another thread on boards where the majority of the posters believe a landlord should not be allowed to change the frequency of rental payments because terms were agreed at the beginning of the lease yet most support the government in changing the terms for landlords whenever they feel like it and landlords should just suck it up.
Landlords are paying tax through the nose and paying an annual rtb fee but when it come to issues facing landlords there are no supports from the state in place, renting has become very one sided and most of the power is shifting to the tenant.
A lot of posters feel that once a tenancy has started the landlord should have no further control, the state also appear to be starting to share this view. Nobody is going to want to invest hundreds of thousands to just hand control over to somebody else. I myself will start the process of selling most of my property.
That makes no sense for anyone for working away for a period of time.
So is your logic that because the government change rules and regulations from time to time, that one party to a random private contract should be unilaterally change it's terms?
If not, why are you falsely equating the two?
Landlords do indeed pay income tax. On their income. Funnily enough.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11a0b7d40285223b8815ff10b499a85b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd5cbbbd4e910e15f74e7f3250e1b58.svg)