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

Great amount of legislation proposed in 2018 to change the Residential Tenancies Act

13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Re. "student accommodation operates under licence" in the quoted article - is this a kind of tenancy that a private landlord can choose when renting to students, or only applies to purpose built student accommodation?

    A private landlord can attempted to create a licence in respect of any tenant. It can be quite difficult to do so. The case below shows as its duration in which a licence was found. It would be quite difficult for a private landlord to achieve the same result.

    https://www.rtb.ie/documents/TR0914-000847/TR0914-000847-DR0414-11559%20Report.pdf


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Just adding further recent great ideas from the TDs.

    Housing Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2018 https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2018/119/ let's rename correctly: wishful communist expropriation of property by the state introduced yesterday by Seamus Healy (at least unlike Sinn Féin TDs he is not an hypocrite: he just says he is a socialist, I would say of the Bolivarian/Trozkyst type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Left_Alliance. He is using the recent motion of Sinn Féin about housing emergency to try to play his political socialist game on housing: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-08/21/

    He does not even care about his bill going against current statute, he is just a plain amateur that throws bills out like if it was a political manifesto with his communist proposals (of course all sort of liberticide legislation in history has been passed with the excuse of "emergency", that is why some Irish political parties are trying to get the emergency passed), let's read what this dangerous elected person is proposing in his great plan for Ireland:

    Existence of an emergency
    1 Dáil Éireann affirms in law that a housing emergency exists in the State. The housing emergency will continue for three years after the passing of this Bill into law. At the
    expiry of this three-year period, the government will bring a review before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

    Evictions from buy-to-let dwellings
    2 During the period of this national housing emergency no tenant shall be evicted from a buy-to-let dwelling, a dwelling purchased for letting purposes.

    Prohibition of rent increases
    3 There shall be no further increase in rents of dwellings.

    Reduction of private rents [this is beautiful]
    4 Existing private rents shall be reduced to reasonable levels, having regard to the differential rent that would be payable by the tenant in situ to a local authority for rental of a similar dwelling.

    Evictions from mortgaged dwellings
    5 During the period of this national housing emergency no resident in a mortgaged dwelling shall be evicted from the dwelling in which the resident resides.

    of course he must know that his proposal will remain just that, but it shows the mindset of people who really do not want a private rented market and everything should be owned/controlled by the state.

    Then we have another recent bill proposed by Eoin Ó Broin of Sinn Féin, another grandstanding do-gooder name hiding socialist views: Residential Tenancies (Prevention of Family Homelessness) Bill 2018 https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2018/110/

    This is more technical and it is a change of current statute but nonetheless deleterious:
    1) A Part 4 tenancy may not be terminated by the landlord on the ground specified in paragraph 3 of the Table to section 34 where the property to which the tenancy agreement relates is the subject of an existing investment mortgage.
    (2) Subsection (1) applies to all tenancies, including a tenancy created before the coming into operation of this section.

    Current Section 34(3) of the RTA as amended by RTA 2015:
    3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling and the notice of termination is accompanied by a statutory declaration referred to in section 35.

    This means that any landlord that has a mortgage on the property cannot evict for sale (it will cover the vast majority of landlords). Now why does the title contains the word "Family"? Just other anti-landlord political gesturing from the fellows at SF! Debate BS can be found here: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-10-16/4/

    Finally another "emergency" bill wanting to suspend fundamental rights (it says it explicitly) without the hassle of going through a constitutional change (I mean how can these people be elected!!!): https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2018/77/ Another grandstanding do-gooder name (hiding socialist tendencies): "Affordable Housing and Fair Mortgage Bill 2018", introduced by John McGuinness of Fianna Fáil (as you can see, dangerous political games span the whole Irish political spectrum), he is just proposing that mortgage contracts should become flexible and making it extremely difficult for the lender to repossess a property due to default (as if it were easy to do nowadays in Ireland!).

    What I see in all these proposals and in the latest govvie proposals is a very antagonistic and dangerous attitude towards private property and freedom of contracts. Nothing good will come out for the Irish private residential market in the near future from this bunch of political idiots. Together with the Irish govvie they are hellbent on destroying the PRS just to show they are doing something to get some votes. I saw some posts about high rental yields in Ireland, well look at the political risk, with small landlords leaving due to the very risky scenarios of effective confiscation of rented property, yields will go further up or worst case property for rent will just disappear like in Venezuela.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    You couldn’t make this sh*t up.......


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    There is zero chance of any of this nonsense coming into force. It is designed to appeal to the constituency of the TD concerned. It is done so the TD can try and impress a section of their constituents by demonstrating that they are trying to help them. Far more tenants and indebted householders go to TDs clinics than landlords and people paying their mortgages.


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Well after a debate with great political grand posturing and hypocrisy:
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-13/40/

    The communist/uncostitutional measure finally reached its deserved end (was shelved for eternity):
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-15/18/

    The Tá TD list is quite long and it shows that there are a lot of communists/socialists in the Dáil (they are the same ones that went for the Anti-Eviction bill in Jan 2017) that try to masquerade under different guises (in this case the "housing emergency") the effective removal of private property rights. This is the main aim of any communist and socialist and no one in this forum will make me think that the people who voted Tá/yes to such measure are nothing but a serious danger to the country and represent a subtantial political risk to any type of business running in Ireland.

    Another FF populist/very expensive measure was shot down in the same day (at least some good news):
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-15/23/
    "Dublin (North Inner City) Development Authority Bill 2018" that wants to setup another expensive useless quango.

    Let's come to the bad news, the govvie will probably give the usual Christmas poisonous present to landlords:
    https://www.thejournal.ie/residential-tenancy-board-law-4345139-Nov2018/
    The RTB (unlike the govvie) actually does not want to have criminal sactions on landlords, since they know how hard they are to prove (beyond reasonable doubt standard of evidence) and they prefer the usually easy (kangaroo court style) high sanctions with just hearsay as evidence without having to go to a proper court and producing solid evidence (which costs work and resources!)

    Again every part of the proposal will be a big F U to landlords with absolutely no carrots at all (this has been the norm since 2008) and will further cause reduction of rental supply. The govvie must know this after years of failures, but they have to appease the various loud hard left groups and do-gooders which get so much exposure on Irish media outlets.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭LotharIngum


    GGTrek wrote: »
    Well after a debate with great political grand posturing and hypocrisy:
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-13/40/

    The communist/uncostitutional measure finally reached its deserved end (was shelved for eternity):
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-15/18/

    The Tá TD list is quite long and it shows that there a lot of communists/socialists in the Dáil (they are the same ones that went for the Anti-Eviction bill in Jan 2017) that try to masquerade under different guises (in this case the "housing emergency") the effective removal of private property rights. This is the main aim of any communist and socialist and no one in this forum will make me think that the people who voted Tá/yes to such measure are nothing but a serious danger to the country and represent a subtantial political risk to any type of business running in Ireland.

    Another FF populist/very expensive measure was shot down in the same day (at least some good news):
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-15/23/
    "Dublin (North Inner City) Development Authority Bill 2018" that wantes to setup another expensive useless quango.

    Let's come to the bad news, the govvie will probably give the usual Christmas poisonous present to landlords:
    https://www.thejournal.ie/residential-tenancy-board-law-4345139-Nov2018/
    The RTB (unlike the govvie) actually does not want to have criminal sactions on landlords, since they know how hard they are to prove (beyond reasonable doubt standard of evidence) and they prefer the usually easy (kangaroo court style) high sanctions with just hearsay as evidence without having to go to a proper court and producing solid evidence (which costs work and resources!)

    Again every part of the proposal will be a big F U to landlords with absolutely no carrots at all (this has been the norm since 2008) and will further cause reduction of rental supply. The govvie must know this after years of failures, but they have to appease the various loud hard left groups and do-gooders which get so much exposure on Irish media outlets.


    It is just this kind of behavior that has force me to remove my property from the rental market and look for other options. Especially the last paragraph.


  • Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭Scienceless


    It is just this kind of behavior that has force me to remove my property from the rental market and look for other options. Especially the last paragraph.

    + 1, agree completely.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    It is just this kind of behavior that has force me to remove my property from the rental market and look for other options. Especially the last paragraph.

    Which particular behaviour?

    The proposals being shot down or something else?


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Let's just add a new one just proposed by no one else but the hypocrite labour TD Jan O'Sullivan, always ready to sell herself and her party for a few extra potential votes:
    Residential Tenancies (Prohibition on Viewing Fees) Bill 2018
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-20/6/#spk_115

    Even though it was admitted by Threshold that their statements about viewing fees were false:
    https://www.joe.ie/news/landlords-viewing-fees-dublin-644769

    Labour still went ahead on legislation based on false statements:
    https://www.thejournal.ie/labour-housing-crisis-viewing-fees-4289190-Oct2018/

    Another virtue signalling piece of legislation to show who is purer than pure. However what is interesting is the absolute audacity of this TD when she states:
    "For example, as I raised previously in the Dáil, we have heard of landlords requesting more than one month's deposit, in some cases two months or three months, to squeeze out certain categories of people and to make it impossible for those on low and medium incomes to be able to raise the kind of money required to get into a home in the first place before they even start paying the kind of exorbitant rents that we have heard about recently. According to the recent daft.ie reports, the average rent is €1,334 per month nationally and much higher than that in the Dublin region.

    Another issue I have heard about is that some prospective landlords are looking for letters from the employer, in other words, squeezing out those who are unemployed, getting information about prospective tenants, and clearly trying to exclude certain people from access to the available accommodation. There are so few places for rent that are affordable to those on average incomes that this is becoming more and more of a crisis. This is one measure that my party would like to see introduced that would protect people from exploitation."

    Is she f.. out of her mind? Of course a landlord will ask for as many references as possible and exclude people who cannot afford the rent (for example unemployed people) when on the other side there are people working and with income. Landlords are not exploiting anyone by excluding people who have no financial means to rent. The hypocrite TD should know that it is not the job of the landlord to house people with no income. With respect to deposit they politicians should blame themselves by not protecting landlord from tenants that do not pay rent and damage properties.

    In any case it is just other legislative garbage coming out of the Dáil, I have already said that the legislative fury on housing knows no boundaries in Ireland and Sinn Féin is ready to increase social housing in private developments to 30% (another bill is going to be introduced soon for further virtue signalling and political games):
    https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-bill-4350916-Nov2018/

    They are just unstoppable


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    GGTrek wrote: »
    Let's just add a new one just proposed by no one else but the hypocrite labour TD Jan O'Sullivan, always ready to sell herself and her party for a few extra potential votes:
    Residential Tenancies (Prohibition on Viewing Fees) Bill 2018
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-20/6/#spk_115

    Even though it was admitted by Threshold that their statements about viewing fees were false:
    https://www.joe.ie/news/landlords-viewing-fees-dublin-644769

    Labour still went ahead on legislation based on false statements:
    https://www.thejournal.ie/labour-housing-crisis-viewing-fees-4289190-Oct2018/

    Another virtue signalling piece of legislation to show who is purer than pure. However what is interesting is the absolute audacity of this TD when she states:
    "For example, as I raised previously in the Dáil, we have heard of landlords requesting more than one month's deposit, in some cases two months or three months, to squeeze out certain categories of people and to make it impossible for those on low and medium incomes to be able to raise the kind of money required to get into a home in the first place before they even start paying the kind of exorbitant rents that we have heard about recently. According to the recent daft.ie reports, the average rent is €1,334 per month nationally and much higher than that in the Dublin region.

    Another issue I have heard about is that some prospective landlords are looking for letters from the employer, in other words, squeezing out those who are unemployed, getting information about prospective tenants, and clearly trying to exclude certain people from access to the available accommodation. There are so few places for rent that are affordable to those on average incomes that this is becoming more and more of a crisis. This is one measure that my party would like to see introduced that would protect people from exploitation."

    Is she f.. out of her mind? Of course a landlord will ask for as many references as possible and exclude people who cannot afford the rent (for example unemployed people) when on the other side there are people working and with income. Landlords are not exploiting anyone by excluding people who have no financial means to rent. The hypocrite TD should know that it is not the job of the landlord to house people with no income. With respect to deposit they politicians should blame themselves by not protecting landlord from tenants that do not pay rent and damage properties.

    In any case it is just other legislative garbage coming out of the Dáil, I have already said that the legislative fury on housing knows no boundaries in Ireland and Sinn Féin is ready to increase social housing in private developments to 30% (another bill is going to be introduced soon for further virtue signalling and political games):
    https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-bill-4350916-Nov2018/

    They are just unstoppable

    I actually wouldn’t even require a deposit if it was actually possible to peruse tenants in a timely, cheap and enforceable mannor


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,502 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    GGTrek wrote: »
    Let's just add a new one just proposed by no one else but the hypocrite labour TD Jan O'Sullivan, always ready to sell herself and her party for a few extra potential votes:
    Residential Tenancies (Prohibition on Viewing Fees) Bill 2018
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-20/6/#spk_115

    Even though it was admitted by Threshold that their statements about viewing fees were false:

    Meanwhile back in the real world, the TDs need to be concentrating on the housing that they already control. An article I spotted in last weeks Liffey Champion newspaper:

    "Two local authority houses in Maynooth have been left idle for over a year...."


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Here we go again, this past Thursday 29th of November was a real feast for the hard left in the Dáil.

    1) Another Anti-Eviction bill, this time from the trotskyst Ruth Coppinger: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-29/20/

    A brief summary of the bill which in the words of the communist TD: "Solidarity-PBP is taking the unusual step of reintroducing, with some new measures, a Bill that was previously rejected by the Dáil in January 2017".

    - extending tenancy rights for those with a licence to reside in student specific accommodation; by the inclusion of receivers and lenders that have taken possession of properties in the definition of a landlord;
    - extension of notice periods for termination of new tenancies [minimum 90 days and after 5 years 365 days [this will happen anyway with the govvie bill to be presented, as if current notices and process to terminate a tenancy were not long enough now];
    - making all tenancies over two months Part 4 tenancies;
    - making Part 4 tenancies of indefinite duration;
    - removing sale of property as a ground for terminating a tenancy;
    - providing for [6 months rent] compensation where a tenancy is terminated on the ground that the dwelling is required by the landlord or a relative of the landlord for their own occupation;
    - removing renovation and refurbishment as a ground for termination of a tenancy;
    - and by the extension of notice periods for new rents and for the termination of tenancies.

    This communist nonsense is a de-facto legal expropriation with no compesation of a rented property. It will be shot down no doubt next week, but it is virtue signalling by Coppinger who together with her comrades participates and supports to many of the illegal actions taken by "Take back the city".

    Whoever wants to read the bill (quite technical since it is a big bunch of unreadable amendements) can look at it here: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/131/eng/initiated/b13118d.pdf

    2) We then go to a more dangerous party (in my opinion) who actually managed to pass some very dangerous legislation that could endanger private housing supply this week with the support of the ever populist FF: "Social Housing Bill 2016" https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-11-29/27/

    The bill is this one: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2016/66/eng/initiated/b6616d.pdf

    This bill has got nothing to do with the state building social housing, SF and FF want to force developers of private properties to provide at least one in four dwellings for social housing, this bill will create two main big consequences (a) increase the purchase cost for private purchasers and (b) reduce incentive for developers to take risks and build, just the opposite of what Ireland needs at the moment.

    A little background on the bill. FG opposed it (apparently without FF support): https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-bill-4350916-Nov2018/

    SF and FF approved it last Thursday: https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-bill-calling-developers-13664400

    I am still expecting a [poisonous] Christmas present from the govvie and the Dáil.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    GGTrek wrote: »
    2) We then go to a more dangerous party (in my opinion) who actually managed to pass some very dangerous legislation that could endanger private housing supply this week with the support of the ever populist FF: "Social Housing Bill 2016"
    This is an enormously stupid bill which will reduce supply. You're right of course, the populists of SF & FF don't give a flying f**k what impact it has, because it probably polls well.

    Part V used to be 20%, and was reduced to 10% to try and generate more house building. It seems to have worked. The morons in SF & FF now want to jack this up to 25%, and as a consequence there won't be a developer in the country who is going to develop "private" housing estates, where houses will be more expensive, and where 25% of the residents are social housing.

    What SF & FF seem to be missing is that there is no demand from people who are actually buying their own houses to live in an estate with large numbers of social housing alongside. Just read any of the other threads on this forum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Here we go again today, this time the proposal comes directly from SF leader Mary Lou MacDonald (the so called Focus amendment):
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-12-04/2/#spk_11

    "I would like the Taoiseach to address the question I asked about the possibility of a rent freeze. I put it to him again that there is a need to adopt the proposal known as the Focus amendment to deal with the issue of landlords seeking vacant possession to sell houses and homes over the heads of tenants."

    https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/taoiseach-rejects-further-call-for-rent-freeze-to-tackle-housing-issue-37594333.html

    SF is hellbent in destroying the private rental market with these amendments using flawed socialist quick fix ideas coming from do-gooders charities which look good only on paper. BTW Focus Ireland evicts its own tenants (there are a few RTB cases of their Housing Association) and they are real hypocrites (second only to Threshold):
    https://reports.focusireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FoucsHousing-Association.pdf

    The last case went all the way to the RTB tribunal and it exposes the conditions attached to their "homeless" accommodation agreements:
    https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/downloads/tribunal-report/TR0218-002847_Tribunal_Report_1.pdf

    There is nothing wrong in actually evicting tenants/licensees like in the case I linked, but then a publicly/taxpayer funded institution like Focus cannot go on the high horse and pretend rent freezes, no evictions and other amenities when they can keep their rent below cost only because they get subsidies from the taxpayers (for example landlords) and they do evict problem tenants. It it were me no NGO should receive taxpayer money, only private donations. In such way a big conflict of interest is eliminated and many of these organizations would disappear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    Lots of debate today about a rent register and notice periods are to double to provide better tenancy security.

    Many td's want to restrict notice to quit if the owner wants to sell or if they want their property back for their own or family use. Others want a rent freeze. Minister Murphy said rtb will get more funding and resources to investigate disputes.

    Will these changes cause more small landlords to sell up and make things even worse?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭DubCount


    Will these changes cause more small landlords to sell up and make things even worse?

    Yes.

    Also, this discourages new investors entering the market.

    Also, this encourages exploitation of tenants.

    Its good news for buyers in the property market, as it helps control prices by watering down investor demand. If you are part of the renting classes though, it sounds like something in your favor, but ultimately tenants pay the price through higher prices and lower standards.

    The only thing that will help this mess, is more supply - supply of rental accommodation and social housing - not just supply of property in general. Our politicians and media clearly never took Economics 101.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,776 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    DubCount wrote: »
    Yes.

    Also, this discourages new investors entering the market.

    Also, this encourages exploitation of tenants.

    Its good news for buyers in the property market, as it helps control prices by watering down investor demand. If you are part of the renting classes though, it sounds like something in your favor, but ultimately tenants pay the price through higher prices and lower standards.

    The only thing that will help this mess, is more supply - supply of rental accommodation and social housing - not just supply of property in general. Our politicians and media clearly never took Economics 101.

    How do we ensure that investors buying and/or delivering this extra supply do so at pricing that allows them be sustainable at the sufficient supply rent levels.

    Extra supply purchased or delivered based on calculations of continued current rent levels and even continued increases from todays rents is unsustainable supply in the long term.

    That's because the investor will lose on his or her investment if the price of housing drops below what they paid or if in a sufficient supply situation the rent drops below monthly costs.

    For example when they initially bought the property the rent covered all costs and left a surplus each month in the bank.

    But when rent drops it goes below the cost per month and the investor has to cover costs from his/her own pocket which directly hits profitability


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭DubCount


    Old diesel wrote: »
    How do we ensure that investors buying and/or delivering this extra supply do so at pricing that allows them be sustainable at the sufficient supply rent levels.

    Extra supply purchased or delivered based on calculations of continued current rent levels and even continued increases from todays rents is unsustainable supply in the long term.

    That's because the investor will lose on his or her investment if the price of housing drops below what they paid or if in a sufficient supply situation the rent drops below monthly costs.

    For example when they initially bought the property the rent covered all costs and left a surplus each month in the bank.

    But when rent drops it goes below the cost per month and the investor has to cover costs from his/her own pocket which directly hits profitability

    There are really 2 ways this can work.

    Option 1 - The government does the investing. Like the good old days, Councils provide social housing directly. Its expensive, but the government controls rents. The side effect is less demand in the private rental sector where this would help as well.

    Option 2 - Market forces. Make private rental investing more attractive by allowing speedy eviction for non-paying or overholding tenants, by doing away with rent controls, by reducing the tax burden etc.. As investors enter the market, price pressure reduces and rents fall in stead or rise. If the price v return maths changes, so supply will change and prices reach an equilibrium.

    Our government doesnt want to or cant afford option 1. Our left leaning politicians and media wont allow option 2 - so we make more rules which further reduces supply and make things worse. The best thing our government could do at the moment is make a statement that there will be no further changes to the Residential Tenancies Acts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    How do we ensure that investors buying and/or delivering this extra supply do so at pricing that allows them be sustainable at the sufficient supply rent levels.

    Extra supply purchased or delivered based on calculations of continued current rent levels and even continued increases from todays rents is unsustainable supply in the long term.

    That's because the investor will lose on his or her investment if the price of housing drops below what they paid or if in a sufficient supply situation the rent drops below monthly costs.

    For example when they initially bought the property the rent covered all costs and left a surplus each month in the bank.

    But when rent drops it goes below the cost per month and the investor has to cover costs from his/her own pocket which directly hits profitability

    Assuming the rent levels even remained as they are for the next three years an investor would see a return on his investment. Even if the value of the property remained the same an investor would have used the rent to cover the mortgage and when he goes to sell the outstanding amount on the mortgage would be less then the sale price. Therefore the investor makes a capital gain not for tax purposes but he does make a gain on his investment as he sells the property for more than is owed on it.

    An investor is an entrepreneur who takes the risks associated with a functioning market. However the property market is not a functioning market because of the proposed legislation.

    If the State needs to house people then let the State do it. Let the investor compete in the market. The private landlord does not have a social responsibility to house people, the State has.

    The State is forcing the private landlord to adopt the social responsibility by trying to introduce this legislation. It is ridiculous to say to anybody that you own something but you can't sell it if you want to but yet that is exactly what is being tried to be introduced.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    DubCount wrote: »
    There are really 2 ways this can work.

    Option 1 - The government does the investing. Like the good old days, Councils provide social housing directly. Its expensive, but the government controls rents. The side effect is less demand in the private rental sector where this would help as well.

    Option 2 - Market forces. Make private rental investing more attractive by allowing speedy eviction for non-paying or overholding tenants, by doing away with rent controls, by reducing the tax burden etc.. As investors enter the market, price pressure reduces and rents fall in stead or rise. If the price v return maths changes, so supply will change and prices reach an equilibrium.

    Our government doesnt want to or cant afford option 1. Our left leaning politicians and media wont allow option 2 - so we make more rules which further reduces supply and make things worse. The best thing our government could do at the moment is make a statement that there will be no further changes to the Residential Tenancies Acts.

    Option two is prevented from happening by ideology.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭LotharIngum


    Point 2 is huge for me.

    I would be happy to sign a lease of any length as long as it applied to both parties and I could evict if they didn't pay the rent or were anti social. Same way as I would expect that they could leave if I didn't keep up my end of the lease.

    If I could have a lease of any length and be allowed to end it easily if the tenant went rogue I would happily go back to letting my apartment. All I want is a fair enforceable lease for both sides. What is available now is basically handing over the keys to a tenant who practically now owns and can stay as long as they like and not pay rent, or wreck the place if they choose.
    Yet a tenant can just walk away from the lease if they feel like it too, but I am bound by worse and worse conditions every time they change the legislation.

    After typing that out, I think at this stage the truth is I probably wouldn't go back to letting my apartment even if things got better. I just couldn't trust that there wouldn't be some other crazy legislation that just pops out of nowhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    .....I just couldn't trust that there wouldn't be some other crazy legislation that just pops out of nowhere.

    Just heard the director of the rtb on radio, more regulation appears to be on the way.

    She said the new annual registration will give more accurate data and there's also a new scheme where landlords can be certified. RTB will have more powers to investigate a complaint made by a tenant or previous tenant by calling to the property.

    Over 8000 landlords have left the sector in the past few years. If the anti-eviction bill discussed on another thread is passed, there might be more.

    Will this situation ever be sorted? It's not working for tenants or landlords at the moment.:mad: as another poster noted, it's only the Revenue that are winning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭LotharIngum


    There is no money in renting property anymore.
    Even the REITS are going to get sick of this moving of the goal posts all the time.
    REvenue are definitely the only winners, and maybe tenants who don't have to move, who have been in place for the last few years.
    As soon as they move though they are in for a landing. And the worse it gets for landlords the more likely those people are going to have to move as the landlords sell up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    The REITS are happy for the moment. High rents on their new builds and little or no tax. The result of the rent cap is that rents for new builds are higher than they would be if there were no rent caps. This benefits the REITS as they are virtually the only ones in the market with new builds to offer. When they find their returns diminishing they will either lobby for change or jump ship.


  • Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭ohlordy


    The result of the rent cap is that rents for new builds are higher than they would be if there were no rent caps.

    Can you explain this to me, as I don't understand it.

    The rent agreed/requested for a new build being let for first time is a product of market forces. The market forces (number looking for a place v number of places available) are fixed on a given day. How does the fact that some of the places available on a given day are subject to a rent cap affect the uncapped places and cause their rent to be higher again?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭ Lia Gorgeous Supermarket


    Over 8,000 Landlords now have left the rental market and rising , either the government want Landlords or not and it appear's not.

    Stuff not needs to be brought in but usually falls on deaf ears.

    EVICTION : tenants that don't pay there rent ,thrash properties ,or are involved in antisocial behaviour need no more than 2 months notice and then immediately evicted by Court Order.

    Movement : Councils need to do more to encourage people move to less demand
    areas.Hap should be outlawed in private and in well demand cities.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    ohlordy wrote: »
    Can you explain this to me, as I don't understand it.

    The rent agreed/requested for a new build being let for first time is a product of market forces. The market forces (number looking for a place v number of places available) are fixed on a given day. How does the fact that some of the places available on a given day are subject to a rent cap affect the uncapped places and cause their rent to be higher again?

    The rent cap is causing under use of properties. In a non controlled market tenants react to rising rents by increasing their concentration. e.g. 5 in a 3 bed house rather than 3 or 4 as previously. The rent caps are enabling some tenants to remain in accommodation which has more capacity than the incumbent tenants are using. This means there is more competition for available rentals and forces the prices up. Once a market is distorted to suit one group, it is inevitable that other groups will be affected adversely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    The rent cap is causing under use of properties. In a non controlled market tenants react to rising rents by increasing their concentration. e.g. 5 in a 3 bed house rather than 3 or 4 as previously. The rent caps are enabling some tenants to remain in accommodation which has more capacity than the incumbent tenants are using. This means there is more competition for available rentals and forces the prices up. Once a market is distorted to suit one group, it is inevitable that other groups will be affected adversely.
    Never thought it from that angle. Good point


  • Registered Users Posts: 33 Olaz


    https://jrnl.ie/4386327
    Hope it's ok to jump in here with a question about this legislation covered in the media earlier this week - landlords being fined up to €30000 for breach of RPZ rules, the RTB being given powers to investigate breaches themselves.
    My sister moved into a rental property two months ago and she suspects that the landlord upped the rent by more than 4%. The landlord put a lot of work into the property before she moved in but I don't think it would be considered 'substantial renovation'.
    She has no interest in reporting this though, she had been waiting a very long time to get a house for her child and herself, and because she is on HAP, it doesn't affect how much she herself is paying. Also, the landlord is the sister of a good friend of hers and it's unlikely she would have gotten any house without that connection. She feels very lucky to have found somewhere to live and she wouldn't want to risk losing her new home by reporting the landlord.
    But this week she has been wondering how this new legislation could affect her. She's actually afraid that if the RTB investigated her landlord and fined her significantly that she could end up being forced to sell the house and my sister would be homeless (back with our parents!) again. She doesn't want her apple cart upset!
    So my question on behalf of my sister is, is this actually law now since last Tuesday? And if so, will the RTB be looking back at tenancies already registered like hers or just those registered from now on?
    Thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Olaz wrote: »
    https://jrnl.ie/4386327

    So my question on behalf of my sister is, is this actually law now since last Tuesday? And if so, will the RTB be looking back at tenancies already registered like hers or just those registered from now on?
    Thanks.

    This rubbish is not the law since last Tuesday or any other time.


Advertisement