The eviction ban

I bet that sounded funnier in your head.

Im just here stating facts.

You are misreading it. It is the way it is outlined on that page. The table is part of (a) rather than (b). There were two scenarios, one at the end of the term, and the other based on the allowed grounds. The former has actually been removed.

This is the revised act. The pertinent bit is the same as the original link

“However after spending three nights at the facility, which they said consisted of a single room with a small bathroom, two sets of bunk beds and a single bed, the family said they were better off living in a tent in their old neighbourhood.”

Didn’t even take me 20 seconds chief.

FFS😄😄

Scam, Scam, Scam.

Your scenario makes no sense

People need somewhere to live, they don't need cars

A 2nd house sitting empty for months is not the same as a 2nd car sitting Idle for months

Even if you had a 2nd car, it's probably a sports or leisure car that you would likely use regularly on weekends. If its a sports car you're already taxed heavily on it.

Cars depreciate in value, Houses appreciate in value.

You're argument is poor.

Sounds like its you with no argument.

In the first case they were offered a hotel but decided that was no good so put themselves in a tent instead knowing the media would jump on it.

Second case, DCC offered them a place in the sports hall which although not ideal was a warm place to stay but of course that was no good either so off they go to the cop shop again as in the first case knowing the media would be all over it.

Third case, no information given on whether they even looked for a place to stay and you know I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a place would have been found for the two of them if they asked for it.

Maggie Cash you say, probably the biggest scrounger, spoofer and a criminal as well.

Great example there all right.

Not the same thing and you well know it.

It's ridiculous how there is an accommodation shortage in Ireland.

But, I think most people are secretly glad as the entire culture is based on fast bucks off property, and or free/cheap social housing.

The Irish ego loves this ****. It's our true religion. Screw the next generation.

The celtic tiger was a big hard on for this country. And we are back to this **** drama again, within the same generation!

And the Irish media pumping up property again with room to improve and house of the year. What a shower of absolute dopes we are.

It's a **** circus.

That's Ireland for ya !

I wouldn't hold Ms Cash out as a beacon of homelessness. She wasn't exactly an ideal tenant, didn't always pay her share of the rent in a couple of places and refused offers of houses as they weren't what she wanted. She then decided to go for the sympathy vote by pretending to sleep in a Garda station with her kids. It worked, of course. She got the type of house she wanted in an area she was happy with.

the only entries to the rental market on the whole are big players, tis a shock they would leave a loophole there to help them

no leave the non pressure zones alone, extend rent controls to new rentals in the pressure zones

non of these measures were meant to affect supply

lack of supply in the housing market means lack of supply in rentals, the rent controls are there to stop people profiteering off this mess, which on the whole they were doing

the market is the opposite of free at the moment, so needs to be controlled

the only thing the government cared was pushing up house prices and this has been achieve extremely well

they dont care about housing, health service etc etc

mostly because there are no consequences for poor performance, in fact its a great way to become tea sock

I'd agree with you to an extent, but the reality is it's a second vacant property, IE an investment. And all investment should carry risk.

The protections of "The Home" should not extend to 2nd properties

Landlords already bear risk when they own a property - the value will go up and down. The property may be worth very little or less than what you paid should you choose to sell - thats the risk element of ownership. Just because a person worked hard and has a 2nd property doesnt mean that person is rich and that their tenant is poor - which unfortunately is the belief of many people renting!

The government should not be able to dictate if you rent out that property or not. The government should not be able to say you cant get rid of tenants who havent paid a penny in rent. Its crazy thinking - a landlord should be able to do as they please with that property and not be seen as greedy bullies ( which most are not) Any other investment you can get out of when you want where as renting a property is not easy to get out of and landlords are stifled by legislation.

Landlords are not charities - Society needs to realise this.

It doesn't extend to it. However if a couple separate should they be allowed to get back that house. Should a LL be allowed to get back a second house if a child requires it.

The vast majority of LL owned 1-3 rental properties, actually the majority only own one. The problem for the government was if the eviction ban stayed these LL would start to look for there property back and in the case of owners of 1-2 properties it would be impossible to stop that. They then would probably sell the property. The other factor is as properties became vacant due to tenants leaving some LL would leave the property empty.

To even keep the ban the government would have had to allow eviction in the case of owner requiring it themselves or for a direct family member that would have nullified the effect of the ban if you decided you wanted to sell it. You get your property back hold off selling it for 6-12 months and then sell it.

There is an old saying hard cases make bad law and it very appropriate to what has happened in the rental sector in Ireland

I think only three units took up the change to the way people in nursing homes were dealth with. There is massive fear of renting a property by people that have vacant houses at present

Maybe instead of pushing this narrative we could be highlighting the amount of normal tenancies out there

But its an irrational fear if prospective landlords don't have the numbers. The news today tells us that 1/8 of cars are uninsured instead of saying 7/8 of cars are insured. Now I agree that paying your car insurance isn't newsworthy and nor is paying your rent on time but you'd have to imagine the vast amount of tenancies are functioning normally.

Had a look at RTB data there. A bit behind but in q2 2022 there were 1,666 eviction notices issued. Even if we were to assume that all of these were for delinquent tenants its a fraction of the 275k plus tenancies registered. The reality is that many of these evictions are no fault evictions which would bring the number of delinquent tenants down further.

I fully agree that there should be a robust system to evict delinquent tenants. I don't agree that the presence of a such a system would result in an influx of new landlords but it should be brought in to penalise freeloaders.

I can't remember who it was, but there was a government spokes person on the news and she was blaming the county councils. She was saying it's their fault and the government shouldn't be blamed. the interviewer pointed out that she was ff/fg and those parties control most of the county councils.

Why the if? Do you not believe the vast majority of tenancies are functioning normally?

Like I said I don't disagree with a system that evicts and/or fines delinquent tenants. It actually baffles me that it doesn't exist. 12 years of government by the party of the law and order and someone can get away with owing a landlord tens of thousands of euro. Its disgusting.

You are not taking into consideration the post I was replying to. My answer was in relation to a post stating that people with a second house should be forced to rent it out rather than leaving it vacant.

It's my view that if someone owns a house, they shouldn't be forced to rent it out. It's their property. If they want to leave it vacant, they should be allowed to do so. Obviously if the house was a danger to anyone, then the owner should be forced to make it safe.