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/
It is not her home she entered into a tenancy agreement a legal contact with another party and rented out the property to someone else when you do that there are certain legal responsibilities attached and she has not met them end of story.
If I was that landlord, I'd vote SF or PBP the next time round, as FF-FG-GP have really messed her around with the eviction ban.
Actually that is only part of the story, the larger part is the denial of a persons right to reoccupy their home as a result of a ban on evictions. As others have pointed out, once the invalidity of the notice was established, the owner should be able to legally reissue it to the tenant and should not be in a position where she is having to search for somewhere to live rather than occupy what she owns. And beyond that, if the Government wants to attract inward investment to the sector, which would result in greater supply, crap like this makes an unappealing investment even less appealing. Any owner who is in the fence about renting their property would be rightly repulsed by this story, does that help tenants?
Doesn't take long to figure out that on the other side of this issue is someone who rents the house and it's not OK to kick them out on the street because the landlord says so.
Don't expect to live in a place you rented out to someone. It's not your home, you're not a homeowner because you're not using it as your home. You're a landlord using it as an investment.
It is the complete story she issued an invalid notice i.e she was too stupid to fill in a template correctly when teh charity as she callss it pointed out this to her she reissued notice but by then the law of the land had changed why do you believe this landlord should be exempt from the law of the land that the rest of us have to abide by? should all landlords be exempt from the law? She wanted to have her cake and eat swan off to Dubai on big money and have some dope pay her mortgage for her while she was there.
On the contrary, it should be the right of the property owner to occupy their property. Though a tenant has a right to legally occupy the property whilst a tenancy exists, the right of the owner should be greater.
All businesses have changing rules imposed upon them.
My take on this is that the OP made it sound as though the tenants are at fault here, when they aren't. And a lot of the replies are in the same line.
Responsibility for the legal situation lies with the government. Many governments over the last few decades have left provision of housing in the hands of the market forces, but the chickens have now come home to roost and they are floundering around trying to find a way to save their seats at the next election.
It's a funny situation when (some) landlords find themselves screwed by the parties they have been voting for, but one group after another has found themselves in this situation over the past decade or so.
That's ridiculous. Nobody should ever rent anything then. Certainly never from a private person.
Interesting
Whatever happened to the philosophical argument against rules being changed? Does that not apply in reverse?
Is your philosophical argument more like "rules that suit me personally can't change mid-flow but ones that don't suit me can"
Is she looking for an exemption? Tenants don’t pay the owners mortgage, anymore than your employer does just because you use your wage to pay yours. The tenant is paying for a service.
This is bad legislation, there will be an avalanche of evictions in March as a result of it, any wavering LLs will be appalled by this. It is short sighted for anyone to think this is a victory for tenants rights.
How did you get that from my post?
The people who make this point have no idea how a business works.
Corporation tax is 12.5%. If the owner extracts money from the business then they are taxed on that again. If you leave the money in the business then that is not your money. It is the property of the business.
That's just stupid! A property owner does have the right to legally occupy their property. However, if the property owner signs a contract waiving that right by renting the property to a tenant for a monthly fee then they cannot expect that right to remain while the tenant legally holds posession of that property!
As another poster pointed out, if it becomes a rental business then it should be taxed as business profit, not personal income.
You are probably right about the legislation being bad law. IMO the government will need to come up with a solution by then, because otherwise the wave of evictions will bring them way down in the opinion polls.
I wonder if this short-term solution is a trap FF laid for FG. They will be swapping portfolios when MM resigns as Taoiseach, and Housing is likely to end up in FG's hands. For the outside observer, that could be fun to watch - could you imagine FF with an election slogan "FG the Evictors' party".
The lesson from this is don't rent any property that you might not want to rent in the future. Best leaving it empty.
With the knowledge that corporation tax is lower than income tax, why aren't individual landlords setting up their own limited company to buy and rent their properties through? Are they prohibited from doing so?
Conversely, don't rent out a house expecting to use it as your home on an indefinite basis. You're a tenant using another person's property as your home in exchange for an agreed some of money.
Am I playing this game right?
Well it seems to be currently inadvisable to rent a property, if that is your residence in the country. Too many issues with getting it back if needed and this apartment owner exposed herself to too many risks.
No. The rules only apply in one direction.
You can choose to pay yourself an income from that profit, which is subject to income tax. Or you can chose to reinvest the money in your business, which may be to the benefit of the tenants. Say you make €5k profit on a rental property in a year. It would make far more financial sense for a landlord to reinvest that money in the property than to draw it down as an income and pay tax on it. Also, treating the rental as a business it would allow a landlord to offset the expenses of mainintaining the property against their tax bill.
,,
What's the difference for the average person? From Revenue's POV, individuals have various income streams - you add them up and pay them various taxes on the total, at the respective rates. For sole traders/ individuals doesn't matter where the income comes from: job, rental, business.
I think you're confusing that with companies that are set up with limited liability etc., who pay their directors / employees a salary (on which they pay tax at normal rates) and are taxed with corporation tax rates on any remaining profit. This is irrelevant though to the small person with a property to rent.
considering I run a business - your point is moot
Indeed and the tenant is continuing to pay for this service as the landlord has not met the lawful criteria for terminating the provision of service simples! She and the rest of the landlords crying and whinging like children can stick it up their holes as far as I am concerned. It is a very simple concept the law applies to everyone including landlords when you go into the property business you must know the laws and regulations that apply to it.
This is happening a lot already.
There's 10 houses in my estate,one is for sale and has been for over a year (it hasn't sold because its wildly over priced) The owner was thinking of letting it short term but is too afraid he'll get into a messy situation.
Another house in the estate has been vacant for about 5 years.The owner has the mortgage paid off and is just too afraid to rent it.He has a daughter in Australia and if she ever comes home it'll be hers.
I also don't buy the whole "it should be the regulations that applied at the start of the tenancy" argument. It would be like arguing that workers rights should be the ones that applied when they started their job, rather than any changes to the law over time.
No ones going to play a game of football where the rules change constantly in the favor of one team only.
In this business you'd need to know the future rules that haven't been created yet.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
