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

Eviction Ban extended

1356720

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    cronos wrote: »
    How is this being applied in the rent a room owner occupier space?

    According to the RTB, the emergency legislation applies to all accommodation types, even those not normally covered by tenancy laws.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That proves Claw's point. If you're going to become a landlord, and the laws make things difficult for landlords, then this should have been considered by the OP when deciding whether to be a landlord.

    No it doesn't. He implies there is something a LL can do about it.
    There isn't. Other than not be a LL.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Past behaviour is the most accurate predictor of future behaviour. I think that in Ireland there seems to be an issue with recognizing who a good tenant is (or even who is a decent person - the type who isn't going to screw you over). I have seen first hand that you can have references from various different sources (long term, short term, agency, landlord, employment) aswell as statement of savings and employment confirmation and history and a landlord or an agent acting on their behalf will pass on you for a property letting. It makes no sense. The end result is that they end up with a bad tenant and it costs multiples of the rent. Landlords in most cases don't seem to realise that they are providing a service that a tenant is paying for and if they charge over the top rents, they are not treating their customer fairly. I have very little sympathy for somebody who rents out a 1 bed shoebox for €1800 and then wonders why they get taken advantage of when they cannot do their due diligence and recognise a bogey. I hope it works out for the OP but how did they end up with a nightmare tenant. There's enough demand out there for rental property and enough good tenants that if you end up with a bad tenant it's invariably your vetting that is the problem.

    There is no vetting you can do that can't be fooled by professional fraudsters.
    Because we don't have any sort of official vetting system and people object to any personal data in such a system.

    There are fraudsters at every price point. Arguably more at lower price point. So that makes zero sense.

    What is a fair rent exactly? Say a million euro penthouse. Whats a fair rent for that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26 curious minds


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That proves Claw's point. If you're going to become a landlord, and the laws make things difficult for landlords, then this should have been considered by the OP when deciding whether to be a landlord.

    It was considered. 6 month contract started in October , ended EO March.

    Worst case scenario as assessed before October - risk was that 3 extra months notice will be given after the EO March - House needed for August.

    The title here is 'Eviction ban is extended' - this risk was impossible to predict.

    When the add went up on Daft , around 950 emails were received.
    Tenants were vetted, the price was fair...they agreed to a 6 month contract

    But now Why would tenants look for new accommodation if they don't have to?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    People don't get how broken the system is. (or these new rules) They only see one side of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    beauf wrote: »
    No it doesn't. He implies there is something a LL can do about it.
    There isn't. Other than not be a LL.

    When a LL is renting out their own home while they are out of the country, one of the things they could do is make a plan for the possible scenario that there will be delays in getting their home back when they return to Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭daithi7


    This thread is illustrative of how the law can be an ass.

    Quite clearly a landlord should be allowed to live in their own property if they wish to.

    Anyone who says otherwise has a biased agenda.

    Op, I still don't understand if you have a 6 month contract with these nightmare tenants, that you should be at least to get rid of them when the latest extension is up in July.

    Imho, the rtb should keep a database of troublesome tenants for would be landlords as a safety net against poor tenancies....


  • Registered Users Posts: 26 curious minds


    Op, I still don't understand if you have a 6 month contract with these nightmare tenants, that you should be at least to get rid of them when the latest extension is up in July.

    This is what i was hoping for the 27th on June but now that it is extended and possibly will be extended after the 20th of July . I have no idea what to do


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


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    When a LL is renting out their own home while they are out of the country, one of the things they could do is make a plan for the possible scenario that there will be delays in getting their home back when they return to Ireland.


    I think the point been made is that LL shouldnt have to do this. Why should it be the LL that suffers always. If it were the tenant who wanted to leave early nothing happens, the landlord is at a lost. If the Tenants wants to stay longer and the Landlord doesnt want them to , the landlord is at the lost.

    Its always a lose, lose scenario for the landlord. Even when it goes to court if a landlord wins, no chance of getting the compensation awarded.

    The system needs to be more balanced and fairer for all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭phantasmagoria


    beauf wrote: »
    There is no vetting you can do that can't be fooled by professional fraudsters.
    Because we don't have any sort of official vetting system and people object to any personal data in such a system.

    There are fraudsters at every price point. Arguably more at lower price point. So that makes zero sense.

    What is a fair rent exactly? Say a million euro penthouse. Whats a fair rent for that.

    So not bad tenants per se...now it is professional fraudsters that are the issue.

    A fair rent is very easy to determine. Take as a percentage of median income and what type of dwelling a person would/should live in from a probability perspective. Look at data and go from there. If your average Joe and Joanne come out with €4k per month after tax and are renting a 1 bed apartment on the outskirts of town, I think 1,300 to 1,800 would be the range that could be deemed fair. Note, the higher end would be a really nice unit. If the concept of fairness eludes, no wonder we have trouble.

    Million euro penthouse? I'd imagine a fair rent if it's an impressive place would be in the region of 4,500 to 6,500 a month.


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


    beauf wrote: »
    Whats a proper plan?

    There is only one plan, the legal framework, which ties the LL hands behind their back.

    A proper plan is one that deals with contingencies. What happens if the rent is not paid. What happens if there is damage or anti social behaviour. The o/p appears to have assumed that all he had to do was sign a 6 month lease, come back after 6 months and wak in the door.
    Now he is crying about homelessness.Nothing has happened which mightn't have happened anyway, Covid or no Covid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,714 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    daithi7 wrote: »
    This thread is illustrative of how the law can be an ass.

    Quite clearly a landlord should be allowed to live in their own property if they wish to.

    Anyone who says otherwise has a biased agenda.

    No daithi

    if we leave aside the temporary covid specific eviction ban which is a time limited measure to address the extraordinary situation and look at the basic principal ....

    contract law says different. its not biased, to say that both sides of the contract should abide by their contractual obligations.
    If the landlord needs the property for their own use or for an immediate family member (this only applies to private landlords)

    You cannot make your property someone else home and then turf them out when it suits you. You have to follow the letter of the law. and the law states they can end a tenancy by issuing a valid notice of termination.

    However this is a case of fixed term rental, and that is a little different because in a fixed-term tenancy, the landlord cannot normally end the tenancy unless you are in breach of your obligations.

    Most businesses in Ireland operate under the regulation of law, and being a landlord is not exception to the rule.

    I said earlier i sympathies with the OP. Im sure most people do. But he wants to visit his problem on his paying tenants, despite a contract being signed and the tenants to the best of our knowledge upholding their obligations.

    Why should they suffer because of the landlords difficulties?
    You cannot unilaterally change the terms of a written contract, the terms of which the OP agreed to when the contract was signed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭snowgal


    Well they are not prepared to move. As I said signed 6 months.
    But they are taking advantage of the situation and refusing to look for something else.

    Hi OP, Just a few questions, still unsure:
    When was the initial 6 months up? Were they meant to be gone before mid March?
    Are they now not paying rent at all?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    A proper plan is one that deals with contingencies. What happens if the rent is not paid. What happens if there is damage or anti social behaviour. The o/p appears to have assumed that all he had to do was sign a 6 month lease, come back after 6 months and wak in the door.
    Now he is crying about homelessness.Nothing has happened which mightn't have happened anyway, Covid or no Covid.

    You said...
    I....without a proper plan to recover it when you needed it. ....

    There is only one way to recover a property.
    I'm asking you whats your idea of a proper plan to recover the property.

    The LL living situation is irrelevant to this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    No daithi

    if we leave aside the temporary covid specific eviction ban which is a time limited measure to address the extraordinary situation and look at the basic principal ....

    contract law says different. its not biased, to say that both sides of the contract should abide by their contractual obligations.



    You cannot make your property someone else home and then turf them out when it suits you. You have to follow the letter of the law. and the law states they can end a tenancy by issuing a valid notice of termination.

    However this is a case of fixed term rental, and that is a little different because in a fixed-term tenancy, the landlord cannot normally end the tenancy unless you are in breach of your obligations.

    Most businesses in Ireland operate under the regulation of law, and being a landlord is not exception to the rule.

    I said earlier i sympathies with the OP. Im sure most people do. But he wants to visit his problem on his paying tenants, despite a contract being signed and the tenants to the best of our knowledge upholding their obligations.

    Why should they suffer because of the landlords difficulties?
    You cannot unilaterally change the terms of a written contract, the terms of which the OP agreed to when the contract was signed.


    And if someone rent for six months they should fcuk off after 6 months whats wrong with that leftie


    MOD NOTE

    Keep it civil.


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


    It was considered. 6 month contract started in October , ended EO March.

    Worst case scenario as assessed before October - risk was that 3 extra months notice will be given after the EO March - House needed for August.

    The title here is 'Eviction ban is extended' - this risk was impossible to predict.

    When the add went up on Daft , around 950 emails were received.
    Tenants were vetted, the price was fair...they agreed to a 6 month contract

    But now Why would tenants look for new accommodation if they don't have to?

    The worst case scenario was that the tenants would not move out after 6 months and force you into the RTB and the courts and keep it going for years.
    You are now saying that the refusal of the tenants to vacate after 6 moths was ot considered?


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


    beauf wrote: »
    You said...



    There is only one way to recover a property.
    I'm asking you whats your idea of a proper plan to recover the property.

    The LL living situation is irrelevant to this.

    There is more than 1 way to recover property. Did the o/p have a guarantor who could be sued in the courts for breach of covenant by the tenants?
    He could have devised a licence arrangement instead of a lease.
    He walked straight into a disaster.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,864 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Now he is crying about homelessness.Nothing has happened which mightn't have happened anyway, Covid or no Covid.

    Eh, you mean apart from a ban on evictions as a result of emergency legislation in response to Covid pandemic, and the State wide lockdown which prevented tenants from viewing/renting another property?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is this post not a bit of an overreaction? You're due to return to Ireland and return to work in August. The eviction ban has only been extended until July? What's the issue?

    Have your tenants told you that they don't plan on moving out, or are you jumping to conclusions? There are thousands of tenancies available on daft.ie/rent.ie, why would't they move out? Also, they've been paying you the rent due for the entire term.

    Are we missing something here?

    All you need to do is tell them that you'll be returning to the property in August. You don't necessarily need to go to the nuclear option and force them out, a reasonable person would take the hint and find alternative accommodation. You returning to the property ≠ the tenants being evicted.

    Be reasonable and everything will be fine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    I think the point been made is that LL shouldnt have to do this. Why should it be the LL that suffers always. If it were the tenant who wanted to leave early nothing happens, the landlord is at a lost. If the Tenants wants to stay longer and the Landlord doesnt want them to , the landlord is at the lost.

    Its always a lose, lose scenario for the landlord. Even when it goes to court if a landlord wins, no chance of getting the compensation awarded.

    The system needs to be more balanced and fairer for all.

    When you're talking about renting out your own home, I think it's prudent to consider the possibility that you don't get it back when expected. In this instance, based on the OP's post earlier today, it seems that the OP had made a reasonable contingency for it. The issue now is that his difficulties with his tenant are exacerbated by the uncertainties around emergency legislation.

    In terms of the system overall, I'd disagree that it's always LLs that suffers. They have a position of power, especially in the current market. That means there is a greater burden of responsibility on them, which is why the RTB is supposed to regulate landlords not tenants.

    If a tenant acts up, then the LL suffers a financial loss. If the LL acts, the tenant can lose their home. Both are undesirable, but which strikes you as being the worse of the two?

    And lets not forget that no matter how bad a landlord is, the RTB can't actually stop them being a LL. There is no mechanism in the acts to refuse to register a tenancy. On the other hand, a LL is well within their rights to refuse to rent to someone with a bad reference.

    I'm not saying the system is perfect, but let's not forget that the laws people are complaining about protect (or at least, are meant to protect) tenants.


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


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Eh, you mean apart from a ban on evictions as a result of emergency legislation in response to Covid pandemic, and the State wide lockdown which prevented tenants from viewing/renting another property?

    Whether any or all of that ever happened he could still have a recalcitrant tenant.


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


    LawBoy2018 wrote: »

    All you need to do is tell them that you'll be returning to the property in August.

    What good will that do? The tenants can refuse to leave.


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


    If the Government is going to allow Tenants to stay rent-free (which is what they have done), then for registered tenancies, the Government should pay the rent, and use Revenue pursue the Tenant.

    That's perfectly reasonable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,864 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Whether any or all of that ever happened he could still have a recalcitrant tenant.

    Are you simply choosing to ignore the issue? The op couldn’t legally evict his tenants in March as would be his right, before they gained Part 4 rights, and now is faced with the prospect of the ban on evictions being extended further.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    What good will that do? The tenants can refuse to leave.

    I'd imagine they would be far more likely to find alternative accommodation if they knew that their LL was returning to the property.

    These tenants don't happen to be the HAP fraudsters you were previously posting about, OP?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    If the Government is going to allow Tenants to stay rent-free (which is what they have done), then for registered tenancies, the Government should pay the rent, and use Revenue pursue the Tenant.

    That's perfectly reasonable.

    No, they haven't. Rents are still due. There are social welfare supports for tenants who are experiencing financial difficulties. The laws on non-payment of rents are still in place, albeit evictions are suspended for the time being. And I imagine most landlords, even if they don't particularly like it, can understand the reasons for that and realise that evicting people into homelessness in the midst of a pandemic is not a desirable outcome.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    So not bad tenants per se...now it is professional fraudsters that are the issue.

    What else would you call someone who deliberately provides false information for vetting.

    A fair rent is very easy to determine. Take as a percentage of median income and what type of dwelling a person would/should live in from a probability perspective. Look at data and go from there. If your average Joe and Joanne come out with €4k per month after tax and are renting a 1 bed apartment on the outskirts of town, I think 1,300 to 1,800 would be the range that could be deemed fair. Note, the higher end would be a really nice unit. If the concept of fairness eludes, no wonder we have trouble.

    Million euro penthouse? I'd imagine a fair rent if it's an impressive place would be in the region of 4,500 to 6,500 a month.

    You basically saying rent should be based on what people earn, not that what the place is worth. Completely ignoring how property and location is valued. Landlord doesn't know how much people earn.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    There is more than 1 way to recover property. Did the o/p have a guarantor who could be sued in the courts for breach of covenant by the tenants?
    He could have devised a licence arrangement instead of a lease.
    He walked straight into a disaster.

    There really isn't. Not during the lock down.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    This is what i was hoping for the 27th on June but now that it is extended and possibly will be extended after the 20th of July . I have no idea what to do


    Id be surprised if you got it back by July 2021 tbh.
    And for that time youll be paying tax on the rental income you get too, as well as paying rent somewhere else.


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


    LawBoy2018 wrote: »
    I'd imagine they would be far more likely to find alternative accommodation if they knew that their LL was returning to the property.

    These tenants don't happen to be the HAP fraudsters you were previously posting about, OP?

    You can imagine what you like. If you are a landlord you have to do more than imagine. You have to plan. Some tenants find accomodation huntig awkward or inconvenient and don't bother. It is easier to hang on in the current gaff for a few years while the landlord does the rounds of the RTB and the courts.


Advertisement