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

Indefinite tenancies discussed on Joe Duffy show

  • 20-05-2019 5:01pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭


    There was a discussion on this mornings Joe Duffy show on rte radio about indefinite tenancies. It was advertised for afternoon airing but was not aired today at 2pm. Wonder why?

    Landlady with 20 properties and she is going to sell before the new law comes into place.

    The amendment to the residential tenancies act is not going to solve the housing crisis.
    If I have a second home I take the risks of ownership in the form of taxes and mortgage but I should not be forced to keep a tenant when I want to sell. My house would be devalued straight away.



    Moderator how to a change the group from renting to letting please? Thanks thanks moderator.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Subutai


    The proposed amendments for later in the year (assuming this government lasts that long) do not relate to removing the grounds allowing termination for sale in the table to s 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended.

    The Minister has been pretty clear on that, over and over again really. It is his view that restricting sale would be unconstitutional and, even if it were not, it could not be retrospective.


    The changes instead relate to the ability to terminate under s 34(b) "without grounds" provided the notice period expires in the six months between the ending of one 4/6 year Part IV tenancy and the next beginning.

    If you want to evict for sale, to move in, because of a beach of tenancy obligations, etc., the Minister isn't proposing to change that. What he is proposing to change is the ability to evict for no reason at all simply because six years have passed and you'd like to, and damn the consequences for the tenants living there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭Squatter


    Subutai wrote: »

    The proposed amendments for later in the year (assuming this government lasts that long) do not relate to removing the grounds allowing termination for sale in the table to s 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended.

    The Minister has been pretty clear on that, over and over again really. It is his view that restricting sale would be unconstitutional and, even if it were not, it could not be retrospective.

    The changes instead relate to the ability to terminate under s 34(b) "without grounds" provided the notice period expires in the six months between the ending of one 4/6 year Part IV tenancy and the next beginning.

    If you want to evict for sale, to move in, because of a beach of tenancy obligations, etc., the Minister isn't proposing to change that. What he is proposing to change is the ability to evict for no reason at all simply because six years have passed and you'd like to, and damn the consequences for the tenants living there.

    Presumably this is because in what passes for the Minister's mind, Irish landlords regularly decide to kick out long-term, decent, rent paying, no-problem tenants on a whim after six years! It must be happening every day of the week in his part of Dublin 4.


  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Subutai


    Squatter wrote: »
    Presumably this is because in what passes for the Minister's mind, Irish landlords regularly decide to kick out long-term, decent, rent paying, no-problem tenants on a whim after six years! It must be happening every day of the week in his part of Dublin 4.

    If it's not happening, then the amendment will be of no consequence I suppose and there won't be any reason to worry about it.

    At least it will ease the minds of the probably paranoiac tenants who fear that they might be removed in that way and provide them with some peace of mind -and a little extra security, even if they never truly needed it.


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


    Subutai wrote: »
    If it's not happening, then the amendment will be of no consequence I suppose and there won't be any reason to worry about it.

    At least it will ease the minds of the probably paranoiac tenants who fear that they might be removed in that way and provide them with some peace of mind -and a little extra security, even if they never truly needed it.

    And cause more ll to leave the market....


  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Subutai


    Fol20 wrote: »
    And cause more ll to leave the market....

    Why would someone running a business make such a massive business decision based on an amendment that won't have any impact on their business.

    In any case, what is the justification for being able to remove tenants for no reason at all simply because they have been there for 4-6 years? Surely that is a horrible thing to do to a person, given the massive impact of an eviction on an individual and especially on a family.


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


    Subutai wrote: »
    Why would someone running a business make such a massive business decision based on an amendment that won't have any impact on their business.

    In any case, what is the justification for being able to remove tenants for no reason at all simply because they have been there for 4-6 years? Surely that is a horrible thing to do to a person, given the massive impact of an eviction on an individual and especially on a family.


    Some ll, will see it edging closer and closer to not allowing ll to get tenants out when they want to sell and will preemptively sell because of this.

    In my case for example, i have one tenant, that im not on the best of terms with, they call me over everything and anything. I also have to remind them to pay rent yet i cant get rid of them. Their more hassle than their worth and would prefer to remove them. This is one legal way of doing this. Its business i dont care if its horrible. All i want to do is minimize stress, hassle and costs. The majority of tenants are perfect however for that bad apple, id like to remove them any way possible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Subutai


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Some ll, will see it edging closer and closer to not allowing ll to get tenants out when they want to sell and will preemptively sell because of this.

    In my case for example, i have one tenant, that im not on the best of terms with, they call me over everything and anything. I also have to remind them to pay rent yet i cant get rid of them. Their more hassle than their worth and would prefer to remove them. This is one legal way of doing this. Its business i dont care if its horrible. All i want to do is minimize stress, hassle and costs. The majority of tenants are perfect however for that bad apple, id like to remove them any way possible.

    I only accept correspondance by email or letter for this reason.

    It's completely disproportionate to continue to hang a sword of damocles over all tenants simply because landlords like yourself are inconvenienced and cannot solve a very simple problem for themselves.


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


    Subutai wrote: »
    I only accept correspondance by email or letter for this reason.

    It's completely disproportionate to continue to hang a sword of damocles over all tenants simply because landlords like yourself are inconvenienced and cannot solve a very simple problem for themselves.

    The exact same could be said right back to tenants. Why are all ll being punished for the few that do dodgy dealings.

    Solve a simple problem, literally changing lightbulbs, being told there is a leak, only for my plumber to find out its a tap that is loose. Theses costs add up when most tenants either know what to do themself or dont fret over small stuff. We are solving this problem by removing these types of tenants the moment we get a chance. 6 years of a bad relationship with one tenant is bad enough as it is, sure its longer than the entire length of the rental crisis were seeing right now.

    Why do you think interest rates are so high in ireland? Their high for one simple reason, its very difficult to evict bon paying mortgage holders and the few that dont pay their mortgage costs the rest of us more money - the same can be said for rentals.

    What you fail to realize is that the more ant ll laws that are brought it without anything to ll will mean more will leave. A compromise is when both parties are not happy and sacrifice something. Right now its ll taking the hit on everything, tenants wanting less rental costs only for these to go up due to all the anti ll legislation that is coming out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭Squatter


    Mod Note

    Attack the post, not the poster.

    The so-called "attack" was merely an expression of my keen wish for the poster in question to benefit in full from the implementation of the policy that s/he supported.


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


    Not content with stopping landlords and tenants agreeing a level of rent that is agreeable between them, its now time to stop them agreeing a term that is agreeable between them. If a marriage breaks down, there is a process to get a divorce and move on in a new relationship - but landlords are now committed for life to their tenants. I remember the happy days when adults could agree a contract between them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    Missed the show, would love to hear it. Do you know if there’s a podcast available? Thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Subutai wrote: »
    Why would someone running a business make such a massive business decision based on an amendment that won't have any impact on their business.
    It's quickly becoming the straw that broke the camels back. Bringing in multiple laws that only help the tenant, and no stronger laws to assist the LL means that more LL's leave the market.
    Subutai wrote: »
    It's completely disproportionate to continue to hang a sword of damocles over all tenants simply because landlords like yourself are inconvenienced and cannot solve a very simple problem for themselves.
    Being a LL is a business. If the tenant costs you more than you get in, you get rid of them. If the LL is unable to get rid of troublesome tenants, and is only able to exit the business, they they will exit the business. But this will mean less houses for tenants to rent, caused by the troublesome tenants.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    YipeeDee wrote: »
    Missed the show, would love to hear it. Do you know if there’s a podcast available? Thanks.
    I'm assuming it'll be on https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/ in a few days.


  • Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    Thanks a million :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,863 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    the_syco wrote: »
    It's quickly becoming the straw that broke the camels back. Bringing in multiple laws that only help the tenant, and no stronger laws to assist the LL means that more LL's leave the market.


    Being a LL is a business. If the tenant costs you more than you get in, you get rid of them. If the LL is unable to get rid of troublesome tenants, and is only able to exit the business, they they will exit the business. But this will mean less houses for tenants to rent, caused by the troublesome tenants.

    Absolutely agree, great tenants moving out because they have bought a bigger family home, I could get a very good rental from this property but after 25 years experience of investing/renting properties, it is time to exit the market. I have 3 more properties that are high demand areas which I will also sell as Part 4s end/tenants move out. Rental sector is the Governments problem, not the property owners, bad laws make it no longer worth the hassle.


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


    As more LLs sell up, it is better for remaining LLs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭overkill602


    renting only to young mobile professionals & students you ll be ok.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭boombang


    Squatter wrote: »
    Smug little git aren't we?

    Hopefully some future tenant of yours will shove your patronising words right back down your throat - but not until after Cretin Murphy's legislation has gone through.

    Charming.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,863 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    As more LLs sell up, it is better for remaining LLs.

    In an open market, yes it would be as the market would set the rental price, but considering that there are already far more tenants than properties, how is it better for remaining LLs?


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


    Dav010 wrote: »
    In an open market, yes it would be as the market would set the rental price, but considering that there are already far more tenants than properties, how is it better for remaining LLs?

    Rents forced even higher.


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


    Dav010 wrote: »
    In an open market, yes it would be as the market would set the rental price, but considering that there are already far more tenants than properties, how is it better for remaining LLs?

    Less supply = higher rental rates or least for people that do not need to follow rpz.

    Tenants are less likely to move on with the tiny selection that is out there also.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Dav010 wrote: »
    In an open market, yes it would be as the market would set the rental price, but considering that there are already far more tenants than properties, how is it better for remaining LLs?

    Rents forced even higher.
    Not in the RPZ. It will likely lead to more restrictions as seems to be the case with what they are bringing in.


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


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Not in the RPZ. It will likely lead to more restrictions as seems to be the case with what they are bringing in.

    Even in RPZs people can get around the rent caps.


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


    For me, it'll mean that my unit remains empty until my kids need it for college.

    It's mortgage free, so costs are minimal.

    So, this is a perfect example of government rules increasing homelessness.

    Why are so many people so stupid that they cannot see that the only way to reduce homelessness is to increase the number of homes?


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    As more LLs sell up, it is better for remaining LLs.
    As LL's exit the market, the crap tenants will just overhold longer when they stop paying their rents. Unfortunately, there's no reason why they shouldn't.


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


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    For me, it'll mean that my unit remains empty until my kids need it for college.

    It's mortgage free, so costs are minimal.

    So, this is a perfect example of government rules increasing homelessness.

    Why are so many people so stupid that they cannot see that the only way to reduce homelessness is to increase the number of homes?

    Not having a go at you personally but this is part of the problem for property owners in terms of rules.

    A policymaker will see "having a house for the kids to go to college" as confirming their belief that landlords are in a good place.

    A policymaker will also take a dim view that someone might be made homeless and end up in emergency accomodation in order for a Landlords kid to have a place to live.

    Policymaker response.....

    1) make it less attractive for a property to be kept empty.....

    2) when it comes time for the landlords young fella to go to college - you pay the kid to stay in a hotel or even the new co living if it means a family in the home avoids homelessness.

    It's not your fault but the having a place in Dublin for your kids when in college feeds into a policymakers negative perception of landlords.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Not in the RPZ. It will likely lead to more restrictions as seems to be the case with what they are bringing in.

    Even in RPZs people can get around the rent caps.
    Really do tell. I am about to upgrade a property so can up the rent. It is 6 months notice then spend about 13k doing it up.

    Is this one of the ways around RPZ? See it isn't cheap and takes a long time. It would take 22 years to get the rent up to the same as others in the block at 4% ever 2 years. Relatives property who didn't keep rent inline with market rent


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Pkiernan wrote: »
    For me, it'll mean that my unit remains empty until my kids need it for college.

    It's mortgage free, so costs are minimal.

    So, this is a perfect example of government rules increasing homelessness.

    Why are so many people so stupid that they cannot see that the only way to reduce homelessness is to increase the number of homes?

    Not having a go at you personally but this is part of the problem for property owners in terms of rules.

    A policymaker will see "having a house for the kids to go to college" as confirming their belief that landlords are in a good place.

    A policymaker will also take a dim view that someone might be made homeless and end up in emergency accomodation in order for a Landlords kid to have a place to live.

    Policymaker response.....

    1) make it less attractive for a property to be kept empty.....

    2) when it comes time for the landlords young fella to go to college - you pay the kid to stay in a hotel or even the new co living if it means a family in the home avoids homelessness.

    It's not your fault but the having a place in Dublin for your kids when in college feeds into a policymakers negative perception of landlords.
    Except they have done nothing and don't plan to do anything about leaving property idle

    Are there changes to stop having the policy where family members needs are valid? Again I dont think there is anything there for this other than making sure it actually happens and not an excuse


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


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Absolutely agree, great tenants moving out because they have bought a bigger family home, I could get a very good rental from this property but after 25 years experience of investing/renting properties, it is time to exit the market. I have 3 more properties that are high demand areas which I will also sell as Part 4s end/tenants move out. Rental sector is the Governments problem, not the property owners, bad laws make it no longer worth the hassle.

    Have you considered investing in a retail or office property as an alternative?


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


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Really do tell. I am about to upgrade a property so can up the rent. It is 6 months notice then spend about 13k doing it up.

    Is this one of the ways around RPZ? See it isn't cheap and takes a long time. It would take 22 years to get the rent up to the same as others in the block at 4% ever 2 years. Relatives property who didn't keep rent inline with market rent

    13k is unlikely to bring about a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.


Advertisement