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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Which parts of legislation are unconstitutional and have any of those parts been brou

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Sorry mod you said 5th December 2011 is that a typo - what is the correct date thanks.

    Mebad. That should of course have been 5th Dec 2019.
    God only knows whats going to happen legislatively between now and then though.........


  • Options
    #33
    __..__
    Registered Users Posts: 452 ✭✭__..__


    DubCount wrote: »
    The part of the legislation I believe is most likely to fall fowl of Article 40, is the way it effectively makes Part 4 tenancies indefinite. Its really an academic argument though, as the only landlords with the pockets to bring a challenge, are the REITs who dont seem interested.

    I know this legislation is unfair, but fairness and legality dont normally mean the same thing.

    Ultimately, landlords leaving the market is what will challenge this legislation. We're about 9 months into a 3 year "temporary measure", and the market is creaking, with pretty much nothing happening to address the supply side. Whats it going to be like this time next year?

    Pretty certain a word has been had in the ears of REITs . Dont rock the boat or you'll be paying tax. Otherwise they would all be going at this legally.


  • Options
    #34
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    __..__ wrote: »
    I think you understand what mean regarding costs.
    To answer your question on why the rent was so low. It started out where I thought I was doing a good thingfor someone less fortunate than myself.
    I let it several years ago to someone who I thought needed it badly at the time and didn't have huge funds, so I was willing to be nice to them. I had just done it up, but figured I could recover the costs of doing it from lettings in future. I usually don't up the rent for several years if someone stays anyway.
    Since then the particular tenant has become a nightmare. Legislation came in to limit how often I could raise the rent. Then before that particular piece of legislation expired, more legislation came in to tie me up even more.
    And now, there is even more legislation being mooted.
    So at this stage I just would like to get out to be perfectly honest.
    Ah, well. I feel your pain. As my late aunt used to say, "Do a good turn and you'll pay for it".


  • Options
    #35
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Anyone who asks why a preexisting rent contract wasn't operating at full market rent as of December 2016 either doesn't know the business or is trolling.
    Certainly not trolling. But as somebody who has seen the business from both sides, its not my impression that there's a huge slice of landlords out there letting below market rent out of a desire to do a good thing for people less fortunate than themselves. Or that there ever was.

    As a landlord (in a market with no rent controls) I don't seek top dollar from a tenant; I'd rather charge a little below what the market will bear and be able to have a choice of tenants, so I can choose the ones who are likely to be long-term, and who I feel will look after the place. If I then got locked into that by the introduction of rent controls, well, I'd still have the advantage that I sought when I accepted a below-market rent, so I'm not being forced into anything that I didn't in fact choose.


  • Options
    #36
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,241 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    __..__ wrote: »
    Pretty certain a word has been had in the ears of REITs . Dont rock the boat or you'll be paying tax. Otherwise they would all be going at this legally.
    How do REITs not pay tax?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,008 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Victor wrote: »
    How do REITs not pay tax?

    Noonan told of investment 'risk' if tax laws change
    http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/noonan-told-of-investment-risk-if-tax-laws-change-35116560.html


  • Options
    #38
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,356 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    __..__ wrote: »
    Pretty certain a word has been had in the ears of REITs . Dont rock the boat or you'll be paying tax. Otherwise they would all be going at this legally.

    More likely that the REITs just don't care. They are still making huge profits and they can absorb these regulations no problem.


  • Options
    #39
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,356 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Posted this on another thread but probably belongs here too, but front page of The Times this morning has Eoghan Murphy bringing in new regulations that give the RTB more powers to go after dodgy landlords who are illegally raising rents. Raising the rent beyond the allowed amount is set to become an offence that can lead to prosecution and the onus will no longer be on the tenants to report it, with the RTB being given investigative powers. Landlords will have to register their tenancies every year, rather than just at the start and after 4 years.

    The other aspect that he mentioned was landlords who got caught by the RPZ with rents that were far below the market rate, so I presume there will be provisions brought in to allow these landlords to increase the rent beyond the 4% to catch up.


  • Options
    #40
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,008 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    awec wrote: »
    More likely that the REITs just don't care. They are still making huge profits and they can absorb these regulations no problem.
    Do Irish REITs even hold much existing residential rental stock in Ireland? I thought they were mostly commercial.

    Funds are more likely to be holding non-performing residential mortgages acquired from banks, in which case rent regs are irrelevant to them.


  • Options
    #41
    __..__
    Registered Users Posts: 452 ✭✭__..__


    awec wrote: »
    Posted this on another thread but probably belongs here too, but front page of The Times this morning has Eoghan Murphy bringing in new regulations that give the RTB more powers to go after dodgy landlords who are illegally raising rents. Raising the rent beyond the allowed amount is set to become an offence that can lead to prosecution and the onus will no longer be on the tenants to report it, with the RTB being given investigative powers. Landlords will have to register their tenancies every year, rather than just at the start and after 4 years.

    The other aspect that he mentioned was landlords who got caught by the RPZ with rents that were far below the market rate, so I presume there will be provisions brought in to allow these landlords to increase the rent beyond the 4% to catch up.


    As it stands I will be giving notice to my tenants to leave after their part 4 is finished.
    If they come out with an option for me to increase my rent to market rate by Christmas, then I will think about staying in the business. If they don't I'm definitely looking at an exit strategy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    lyda
    Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭lyda


    I'm a landlord and I have been very happy with the PRTB and the RTB. They provide clear rules and make it far easier to settle disputes. I'd hope for more regulation rather than less. The rent control options do a good job of reducing churn, lead to better neighbourhoods and therefore better long-term value for properties.

    For any short-term gain there might be, there are clear long-term benefits. I hope there's continued progress on regulation and raising standards in the rental sector.


  • Options
    #43
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lyda wrote: »
    For any short-term gain there might be, there are clear long-term benefits. I hope there's continued progress on regulation and raising standards in the rental sector.

    While I absolutely appreciate the well intentioned sentiment, the cost of raising standards is ultimately paid for by the tenants.

    Banning bedsits may have helped raise standards but it's difficult to see how that has caused anything but hardship for the previous occupants.

    None of that is to suggest we shouldn't try to raise standards as long as appropriate provisions have been made for the most vulnerable in society who can't afford the improved standards.


  • Options
    #44
    subrosa
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭subrosa


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Simples- the government went to the media and painted The Irish Property Owners Association (IPOA) into a corner suggesting 'it was operating in an anti-competitive manner'. The Competition Authority was put into action- and conducted an investigation into a press release from the Irish Property Owners Association (Jan of this year) after they rather foolishly published the equivalent of an idiots guide to applying new charges on tenants to get around RPZ 4% rate rules. They've pretty much vanished from the media (though they continue to exist as an organisation) since.

    The IPOA made a huge mistake in issuing that statement and writing to every TD during the passage of the legislation. The contents of their statement was basically "if you pass this legislation landlords will seek ways to get round it and increase costs to renters."

    This was interpreted by TDs as a threat not to pass the legislation or else. If there is one thing the members of the Oireachtas will respond badly to it's a public threat. There was always going to be a response. It was politically inept and undercut any further contribution they might have hoped to make.


  • Options
    #45
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    subrosa wrote: »
    The IPOA made a huge mistake in issuing that statement and writing to every TD during the passage of the legislation. The contents of their statement was basically "if you pass this legislation landlords will seek ways to get round it and increase costs to renters."

    This was interpreted by TDs as a threat not to pass the legislation or else. If there is one thing the members of the Oireachtas will respond badly to it's a public threat. There was always going to be a response. It was politically inept and undercut any further contribution they might have hoped to make.

    It really was amateur hour to be honest- and every landlord in the country is paying the price of the ineptitude.

    The Housing Department have a stand down at the ploughing- and are very approachable and friendly- if anyone is down their direction. Most of their handouts appear to be HAP related. Curiously- the next stand to them in the tent- relates to building regulations......... The irony.

    If anyone is going to the last day of ploughing today- I'd strongly suggest they pay a visit to the Department of Housing tent- its on Row 13- across from the Teagasc tent.

    The RTB are in the tent too- however, were not nearly as forthcoming or willing to talk- as were the Housing Department Staff.

    Well worth a visit- the folk on the stands are knowledgeable and very happy to discuss the various schemes, legislation etc. Its an opportunity that doesn't present itself very often- if you're going to the ploughing- and are either a landlord or a tenant- do visit them.


  • Options
    #46
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    lyda wrote: »
    I'm a landlord and I have been very happy with the PRTB and the RTB. They provide clear rules and make it far easier to settle disputes. I'd hope for more regulation rather than less. The rent control options do a good job of reducing churn, lead to better neighbourhoods and therefore better long-term value for properties.

    For any short-term gain there might be, there are clear long-term benefits. I hope there's continued progress on regulation and raising standards in the rental sector.

    "The major effects have been to reduce rents on pre-1976 units but to increase rents on newly constructed post-1975 units, to reduce new construction, to accelerate deterioration and conversion of the existing rental stock, to generate a severe rental housing shortage, to create an environment for key money; to inefficiently and inequitably redistribute income, and to significantly exacerbate government budgetary deficits by reducing tax revenues and inducing increased government housing expenditures."

    An economic assessment of rent controls: The Ontario experience


Advertisement