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

24

Comments

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


    The IPOA is dominated by old style pre-63 landlords. They are too mean to take cases against legislation.


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


    The IPOA is dominated by old style pre-63 landlords. They are too mean to take cases against legislation.

    To be fair, I think there are legal difficulties in taking such a case. There is a concept in Irish law called "Maintenance and Champerty". Excuse my uneducated explanation of this but it basically stops someone taking a case in which they do not have a direct interest. So the IPOA cannot take a test case for one of their members, or fund one of their members to take a test case.


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


    DubCount wrote: »
    To be fair, I think there are legal difficulties in taking such a case. There is a concept in Irish law called "Maintenance and Champerty". Excuse my uneducated explanation of this but it basically stops someone taking a case in which they do not have a direct interest. So the IPOA cannot take a test case for one of their members, or fund one of their members to take a test case.

    It is accepted that members of an association can fund one of their members in a case. likewise a family member can fund the case of another. maintenance and champerty is not the reason for not taking a case. it is pure meanness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭Scienceless


    GGTrek wrote: »
    So the govvie will propose his first bill in June and a second one in the Autumn, again the rules of the game are being changed twice in the same year and they are all against landlords.

    Is there any indication that the situation re landlords in receipt of below market rents due to RPZ restrictions might be addressed in either of the pending government bills?


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    GGTrek wrote: »
    So the govvie will propose his first bill in June and a second one in the Autumn, again the rules of the game are being changed twice in the same year and they are all against landlords.

    Is there any indication that the situation re landlords in receipt of below market rents due to RPZ restrictions might be addressed in either of the pending government bills?
    None


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    DubCount wrote: »
    To be fair, I think there are legal difficulties in taking such a case.  There is a concept in Irish law called "Maintenance and Champerty".  Excuse my uneducated explanation of this but it basically stops someone taking a case in which they do not have a direct interest.  So the IPOA cannot take a test case for one of their members, or fund one of their members to take a test case.

    It is accepted that members of an association can fund one of their members in a case. likewise a family member can fund the case of another. maintenance and champerty is not the reason for not taking a case. it is pure meanness.
    Could not agree more, the IPOA is doing a massive disservice to landlords in Ireland. If they just said we are looking for help for a member to mount a legal challenge to the RTA 2016 I would have gladly helped financially. As I said before, it is run like a senior citizens club.


  • Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭Scienceless


    GGTrek wrote: »
    None

    Obviously it’s not a headline issue like others being discussed here, but it was at least acknowledged in the outcome of the public consultation re the review of the rent predictability measure. Maybe some hope for those ll’s caught in below market rent situations who will be forced to sell up if it’s not addressed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    GGTrek wrote: »
    None

    Obviously it’s not a headline issue like others being discussed here, but it was at least acknowledged in the outcome of the public consultation re the review of the rent predictability measure. Maybe some hope for those ll’s caught in below market rent situations who will be forced to sell up if it’s not addressed.

    Please read the full debate and you will see that there is no mention at all about it. Just some words thrown out about high taxation of landlords but with no legislative action about it. Some TD actually said he wants rents halved by law now!
    Do you realize that the majority of TDs want small landlords out? It was actually well explained by the minister.
    Do not expect anything positive for landlords to come out from the Dail. The only solution for landlords is a very expensive legal challenge that will finally stop any further action from these populist TDs. The communists in Ireland actually want to change the constitution to restrict (read almost abolish) private property rights, problem is that in a referendum they will probably loose since 80% of the Irish people own at least a property.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8 Lcgalway


    Does anyone know how long this bill would take to enact if there are no objections or issues. I know it has different stages and multiple things can slow it down. But if no issues roughly how long does it take


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Lcgalway wrote: »
    Does anyone know how long this bill would take to enact if there are no objections or issues. I know it has different stages and multiple things can slow it down. But if no issues roughly how long does it take
    The govvie is taking forward this bill at the moment:
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/press-centre/press-releases/20180611-rights-of-tenants-homeless-on-housing-committee-agenda/
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2018/5/
    https://whitneymoore.ie/2018/06/21/residential-tenancies-amendment-bill-2018-the-implications-for-landlords/

    And another round of BS about standards where the Threshold has been called but no landlords association:
    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/press-centre/press-releases/20180703-housing-committee-to-discuss-standards-in-rental-sector/

    In my opinion the govvie will not be able to pass any legislation before the summer break. After that it is anybody's guess, really depends on political will.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭subrosa


    The Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government has conducted per-legislative scrutiny on the heads of government's new bill. The debates are available here:

    Session with the RTB:

    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_housing_planning_and_local_government/2018-06-12/2/

    Session with Threshold, IPOA and USI:

    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_housing_planning_and_local_government/2018-06-14/3/


    This is the government bill. None of the other bills have any hope of becoming law, although they can influence government thinking. Some of the measures in the government bill were lifted from the Soc Dems bill earlier in the year. The Minister has spoken of his desire to have two residential tenancies bills this year, although the time-frame is very tight. The second may focus on a reworked deposit protection scheme.


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    subrosa wrote: »
    The Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government has conducted per-legislative scrutiny on the heads of government's new bill. The debates are available here:

    Session with the RTB:

    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_housing_planning_and_local_government/2018-06-12/2/

    Session with Threshold, IPOA and USI:

    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_housing_planning_and_local_government/2018-06-14/3/


    This is the government bill. None of the other bills have any hope of becoming law, although they can influence government thinking. Some of the measures in the government bill were lifted from the Soc Dems bill earlier in the year. The Minister has spoken of his desire to have two residential tenancies bills this year, although the time-frame is very tight. The second may focus on a reworked deposit protection scheme.
    Thank you verymuch. Have you got any link to the proposed legislation they discussed in the debates? They were referring to head number X, head number Y, ... It was very confusing to read the debate without seeing theactual proposals.

    Some parts I managed to understand are really scary: like anonymous complaints at the RTB against landlords (but not against tenants:D). This reminds me of the good old fascist/communist tradition. Some of the people in the committee are from the hard left and not much use listening to them, but when the words come from the head of the RTB, things become serious. It looks like another massive anti-landlord legislation that will further reduce supply as the IPOA respresentative pointed out and was almost completely ignored by the committee who ignored the fact that you cannot force people to be landlords and landlords do not have a duty of social care of their tenants.


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


    They brought up some interesting points in the article.

    For one I would love it if there was a dispute with rent arrears, the tenant would mandatorily have to provide the rent to the RTB if they wanted to appeal a case and bring the paid rent up to the pro rata amount. At least that way the tenant has some skin the the game so that if they loose their appeal, it is given to the ll.

    Another interesting point is that they are looking for tenants to support RTB since they are the people receiving the protection.i wish the tenant had to pay full or at least half of the cost of a registration since they do not provide any type of real protection to ll.

    Is it true that for every 3 rental properties, one is bought as a btl again?

    I do believe accidental ll should be pushed out of the market(if they can, or at least give it to an agency that can manage the house properly).

    How can reits get away with not paying any tax while the vast majority of ll pay 53pc. I wish all profit incl reits were taxes evenly. Maybe at amount of 40 or whatever the equivalent is when you account for reits

    I also found it interesting that. They would like the IPOA to receiving funding from RTB or state funding to “professionalize” ll. It’s an interesting viewpoint on the matter.

    Likewise, they are also talking about being in criminal sanctions against ll. They brought up a very valid point that why don’t criminal sanctions also come in against non rent paying tenants. At least that way it is fair to both sides. Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer they don’t bring this in but at least it’s fair to both sides.

    Lastly, although it makes complete sense for one body to be unified to deal with issues, I would be seriously worried if everything was left to the RTB on its current state. It is already understaffed to Cope with existing demand for their services.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,472 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    REITs are required to pay out 90% of their income to shareholders, which are taxed at the top marginal tax rate for most.

    The government get more out of every euro they make than they would a normal limited company.


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Varik wrote: »
    REITs are required to pay out 90% of their income to shareholders, which are taxed at the top marginal tax rate for most.

    The government get more out of every euro they make than they would a normal limited company.
    Disagree. Most investors in REITs are pension funds (foreign ones as well) who get a very preferential tax treatment on distribution of dividends.


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Fol20 wrote: »
    They brought up some interesting points in the article...

    .

    What you posted are the wishes and submissions of IPOA. Nothing to do with the new proposed legislation which seems to be very anti-landlord again. The RTB directors debate gives a much better picture of the proposed changes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    I found another good piece of info on Sinn Féin website:
    http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2018/HPLG-381-2018_Letter_from_Min_Murphy_re_Referral_Residential_Tenancies_A__Bill_2018.pdf
    The general scheme of the current amendment bill proposal is still not out, but there are proposal there at page 4 that will absolutely kill the private rental market as we know it (it will go to how it was in the UK in the 70s, where there was almost no private rental market). The worst proposal is the introduction of indefinite tenancies, this is what I call expropriation. Selling looks like a good option at the moment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    As soon as my tenants Part IV is up I'm taking my place off the market and using it as a crash pad for my family and I. It's in a great location.

    Not worth the hassle after the Govt. takes their 54% cut.

    Another unit off the market.


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


    Mike Allen from Focus Ireland was given an interview on morning Ireland about 5 to 9 this morning.

    He's pushing for indefinite tenancies which will transfer when the house is sold as far as I can see. (moral and social obligations of landlords etc etc)

    He wasn't asked why anyone would be encouraged to invest in a house to be a landlord if they can never ever get the house back.
    Also admits thousands of empty houses countrywide.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0712/978092-homeless-ireland/


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    More socialist nonsence


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


    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0713/978362-rtb/

    What does the last paragraph mean, it seems like it contradicts itself.

    “Overall tenancies are up with 340,000 tenancies. There has been a slight contraction of rental tenancies. “

    How can be up and down at the same?


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


    Fol20 wrote: »
    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0713/978362-rtb/

    What does the last paragraph mean, it seems like it contradicts itself.

    “Overall tenancies are up with 340,000 tenancies. There has been a slight contraction of rental tenancies. “

    How can be up and down at the same?
    the overall number registered as up but that is because of the inclusion of a category of tenancy not previously registered. When allowance is made for that category, the number of registered tenancies actually fell. Given that enforcement activity continues, bringing in more registrations, the fall in the number of tenancies is all the greater. What part of "driving landlords out of the business, causes a fall in the number of tenancies, which in turn causes a rise in rents as well as facilitating a drop in standards" do these people not understand?


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


    Fol20 wrote: »
    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0713/978362-rtb/

    What does the last paragraph mean, it seems like it contradicts itself.

    “Overall tenancies are up with 340,000 tenancies. There has been a slight contraction of rental tenancies. “

    How can be up and down at the same?

    The RTB now has registrations for Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs) as well as Private Landlords. The number of Private Landlords and Private Tenancies has fallen, but an increase in AHB registrations means the overall level of RTB registrations has increased.

    Dont be fooled - THE AHB stuff represents new registrations not new tenancies. No surprise to anyone looking for a rental property at the moment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭subrosa


    The number of tenancy registrations increased increased by 4.3% from 2016 to 2017, however when the AHBs are removed the number of tenancy registrations fell by 2.1%.



    The number of landlords fell by 0.7%, but keep in mind the number of landlords has increased by 75% from 2008.


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


    subrosa wrote: »
    The number of tenancy registrations increased increased by 4.3% from 2016 to 2017, however when the AHBs are removed the number of tenancy registrations fell by 2.1%.



    The number of landlords fell by 0.7%, but keep in mind the number of landlords has increased by 75% from 2008.

    The amount of landlords doesn’t really matter as 70pc are owners of 1 property. The most important fact is the amount of rental properties. Does the stats indicate it has decreased?


  • Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭subrosa


    Fol20 wrote: »
    The amount of landlords doesn’t really matter as 70pc are owners of 1 property. The most important fact is the amount of rental properties. Does the stats indicate it has decreased?


    The total number of registered tenancies at the end of 2017 was 339,447. This compares with 325,372 tenancies registered at the end of 2016. So the total number is up by 4.3%, but that increase is almost totally explained by AHB registrations (the deadline for them to register was in 2017.)



    In real terms the number of private (i.e. non-AHB) tenancies fell from 319,822 to 313,002 a fall of just over 2%. This is the first fall in the numbers, which have been climbing ever year since 2010, but to be honest a 2% fall year-on-year doesn't mean a whole lot.


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


    subrosa wrote: »
    The total number of registered tenancies at the end of 2017 was 339,447. This compares with 325,372 tenancies registered at the end of 2016. So the total number is up by 4.3%, but that increase is almost totally explained by AHB registrations (the deadline for them to register was in 2017.)



    In real terms the number of private (i.e. non-AHB) tenancies fell from 319,822 to 313,002 a fall of just over 2%. This is the first fall in the numbers, which have been climbing ever year since 2010, but to be honest a 2% fall year-on-year doesn't mean a whole lot.

    It means a whole lot when it includes all the tenancies that were forced to register the previous year due to non compliance. Detecting lung compliance boosts the number of registered tenancies, but doesn't cause any increase in the supply. The reality is that the supply is contracting at a time when demand is rising.


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


    A little more legislation perhaps.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/rent-caps-for-purpose-built-student-accommodation-to-be-introduced-1.3569476

    "Rent caps for purpose-built student accommodation to be introduced
    Move sought by FF and SF comes after increases of as much as 15% in some areas"

    Too much of it is being built anyway. :pac:


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Small amendment to the existing rules only. Student rentals stopped Maynooth being counted as an RPZ for half a year or so due to the inherently cyclic nature meaning that average rents usually went down at the start of Q3 every year.

    The unique situation with student rentals even when in main-market houses means that June and December are still the cheapest months to start a lease in Maynooth - former student rentals being rented to the general market for June; in December it is landlords burnt by first year dropouts and coupling-up causing room sharing just giving up on the student market.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 35 ckblackrock


    A little more legislation perhaps.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/rent-caps-for-purpose-built-student-accommodation-to-be-introduced-1.3569476

    "Rent caps for purpose-built student accommodation to be introduced
    Move sought by FF and SF comes after increases of as much as 15% in some areas"

    Too much of it is being built anyway. :pac:
    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?


Advertisement