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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Eviction Ban extended

13567…12

Comments

  • #102
    Xterminator
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,757 ✭✭✭Xterminator


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


    MOD NOTE


    Keep it civil.

    To answer your question, that is how you think it should be, but it is not the law as it stands in Ireland. Being a landlord is a business & they cannot ignore the law. A 6 month fixed tenancy in Ireland does not mean the tenants move out on the last day.

    Being a landlord in Ireland is not for the fainthearted.

    But before the lease was signed for 6 months the landlord knew or should have known what they were agreeing to. Landlord could have specified a different length of time, or type.
    A fixed term tenancy is a tenancy that lasts for a specific amount of time. A ‘Part 4’ tenancy runs alongside a fixed term tenancy, which means the tenant shall, after a period of 6 months and as in the normal course, become entitled to the provisions of a ‘Part 4’ tenancy (i.e. they can stay in the property for 4 or 6 years*). This simply means that irrespective of the length of the fixed term lease, a tenant has an entitlement to remain in the dwelling for up to 4 or 6 years* and the landlord can only terminate the tenancy on limited grounds. Click here to see on what grounds a landlord can end a fixed-term tenancy.


  • #103
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I might not have a problem with it if it was shown there was such a significant incidence of non-payment of rent to justify public funds, much needed at this particular point in time, being spent in this way.

    But that hasn't been proven to any degree.

    If there is no significant risk of non payment , then its not a risk to the government to make them.


  • #104
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The o/p cannot "kick them out". He has to issue a notice of termination. the tenants can appeal it.

    He can't issue a notice of termination ; but he can inform them that their tenancy has ended on the appropriate date; that they must nonetheless continue to pay rent and that as their tenancy has ended a part four tenancy cannot be created regardless of how long they overhold.

    This is contingent on the original poster telling the truth (and we must assume that he is telling the truth) about a six month tenancy.


  • #105
    phantasmagoria
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 127 ✭✭phantasmagoria


    beauf wrote: »
    What else would you call someone who deliberately provides false information for vetting.

    Well there is a difference between falsifying information and becoming a bad tenant through circumstances and overholding, refusing to pay rent. I would call that person a chancer. You used the term professional fraudster.



    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.

    There has to be a benchmark for rents and it isn't on the value of the house...earning power has to come in to it somewhere. Otherwise when property values crash, rents should drop to the floor. I haven't seen that happening. Anyway it's a waste of time going back and forth so good luck


  • #106
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    If there is no significant risk of non payment , then its not a risk to the government to make them.

    If there's no significant risk of non payment, then your initial statement that the government is letting tenants live rent free is wrong.

    Glad we cleared that up at least.


  • #107
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 974 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    phantasmagoria wrote: »
    There has to be a benchmark for rents and it isn't on the value of the house...earning power has to come in to it somewhere. Otherwise when property values crash, rents should drop to the floor. I haven't seen that happening. Anyway it's a waste of time going back and forth so good luck

    Even when rent is pegged to earnings as with social housing there are still people who don't pay rents. The rental sector in Ireland will be concatenated in the hands of big operations who can spread risk across many properties, maintain blacklists of undesirables and have legal departments to deal with evictions. One of the reasons for high prices here is the high level of non payers, ultimately the actions of individual tenants who do not pay rent and/or destroy properties are borne by the tenant body as a whole.


  • #108
    DubCount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭DubCount


    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

    This article is just about Dublin City Council rent arears. There will always be an element that just wont pay.


  • #109
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,289 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    He can't issue a notice of termination ; but he can inform them that their tenancy has ended on the appropriate date; that they must nonetheless continue to pay rent and that as their tenancy has ended a part four tenancy cannot be created regardless of how long they overhold.

    This is contingent on the original poster telling the truth (and we must assume that he is telling the truth) about a six month tenancy.

    He can't issue a notice of termination during the emergency period. When the emergency period ends he will have to issue a notice of termination. What the legislation means is that he does not have to give a reason for the termination. Nevertheless the tenants may challenge the notice when the do get it.


  • #110
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    If there's no significant risk of non payment, then your initial statement that the government is letting tenants live rent free is wrong.

    Glad we cleared that up at least.

    But there are many tenants who aren't paying.
    You're saying there's no risk, not me.

    You seem to be happy with socialism and retroactive law as long as its not costing you anything personally.


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    He can't issue a notice of termination during the emergency period. When the emergency period ends he will have to issue a notice of termination. What the legislation means is that he does not have to give a reason for the termination. Nevertheless the tenants may challenge the notice when the do get it.

    According this this expert on tenancy law, where a fixed term tenancy of less than 6 months exists, no written notice of termination is required.

    https://www.lawyer.ie/property/ending-your-tenancy/


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    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.

    Up until 1998 you could offset rental outgoings- directly- against rental income- aka you didn't have to pay your own rent out of net income if you had rental income. This was another thing that McCreevy closed down

    There are a cohort of people out there who for various reasons (such as the OP) end up in situations where they have to rent a domestic residence while simultaneously letting one. It just doesn't make sense why you're not allowed offset one against the other.


  • #113
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Up until 1998 you could offset rental outgoings- directly- against rental income- aka you didn't have to pay your own rent out of net income if you had rental income. This was another thing that McCreevy closed down

    There are a cohort of people out there who for various reasons (such as the OP) end up in situations where they have to rent a domestic residence while simultaneously letting one. It just doesn't make sense why you're not allowed offset one against the other.

    What are you basing that on? The OP's situation seems like more of an anomaly to me.


  • #114
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 974 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    LawBoy2018 wrote: »
    What are you basing that on? The OP's situation seems like more of an anomaly to me.

    It's common for people who work for a living, they get a job away from home and not wanting the hassle of selling and buying or if it's a fixed term contact to rent away and let at home. I've done it in the past, wouldn't risk it now.


  • #115
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    But there are many tenants who aren't paying.
    You're saying there's no risk, not me.

    You seem to be happy with socialism and retroactive law as long as its not costing you anything personally.

    As you're now basically repeating a previous statement, I'll just refer you back to my response to that post.

    When you're ready to get off the roundabout and move the discussion forward (without the needless personal jibes as well), let me know. Otherwise, enjoy the spin.


  • #116
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,427 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Up until 1998 you could offset rental outgoings- directly- against rental income- aka you didn't have to pay your own rent out of net income if you had rental income. This was another thing that McCreevy closed down

    There are a cohort of people out there who for various reasons (such as the OP) end up in situations where they have to rent a domestic residence while simultaneously letting one. It just doesn't make sense why you're not allowed offset one against the other.

    I’d love you to show me the section of the 1998 Finance Act which contains this? Or are you talking about the IR£500 pa deduction available to renters?


  • #117
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    redarmyblues wrote: »
    Even when rent is pegged to earnings as with social housing there are still people who don't pay rents. The rental sector in Ireland will be concatenated in the hands of big operations who can spread risk across many properties, maintain blacklists of undesirables and have legal departments to deal with evictions. One of the reasons for high prices here is the high level of non payers, ultimately the actions of individual tenants who do not pay rent and/or destroy properties are borne by the tenant body as a whole.


    I have friends who are landlords so often discuss it with them as at one point i was seriously thinking of investing.
    WHat they do is look up a potential tenant against the rtb database. And if the name comes up they just move on to the next applicant. They dont even care if its just a person with the same name and not the applicant. They dont even care what the case was. They just wont waste their time checking beyond the name is on the rtb cases.
    Their reasoning is that there are loads more potential tenants and loads of risk, so why take any risk at all that you can eliminate.


  • #118
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,289 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Dav010 wrote: »
    According this this expert on tenancy law, where a fixed term tenancy of less than 6 months exists, no written notice of termination is required.

    https://www.lawyer.ie/property/ending-your-tenancy/

    Who says he is an expert? Once again you are referring to secondary sources and not the legislation. In any case you are misrepresenting what is stated. The Act itself is perfecty clear.

    What he says correctly, no written notice of termination is required from the Tenant if the tenancy has lasted 6 months or less but that a Notice of termination is required from the LANDLORD.
    This is in accordance with the act
    Section 195 is where the 6 months comes in. A tenant can simply stay on after the 6 month period comes to an end without notifying the landlord. the tenant is always entitled to vacate at the end of a fixed period with giving a termination notice.
    195.—(1) In this section “relevant dwelling” means a dwelling, the subject of a
    tenancy that is for a fixed period of at least 6 months.
    (2) The tenant of a relevant dwelling, if he or she intends to remain (on whatever basis, if any, that is open to him or her to do so) in occupation of the dwelling after the expiry of the period of the tenancy concerned, shall notify the landlord of that intention.
    (3) That notification shall not be made to the landlord—
    (a) any later than 1 month before, nor
    (b) any sooner than 3 months before,
    the expiry of the period of that tenancy.
    (4) If a tenant fails to comply with subsection (2) and the landlord suffers loss or damage in consequence of that failure the landlord may make a complaint to the Board under Part 6 that he or she has suffered such loss or damage.
    (5) An adjudicator or the Tribunal, on the hearing of such a complaint, may make a determination, if the adjudicator or the Tribunal considers it proper to do so, that the tenant shall pay to the complainant an amount by way of damages for that loss or damage.

    A landlord always has to issue a Notice of Termination.

    58.—(1) From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part.
    (2) Accordingly, the termination by the landlord or the tenant of—
    (a) more beneficial rights referred to in section 26 that the tenant enjoys under
    a tenancy than those created by Part 4, or
    (b) a tenancy to which section 25 applies,
    must be effected by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part.
    (3) Each of the following—
    (a) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(a) (unless it expressly excludes this
    means of termination),
    (b) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(b), and
    (c) a tenancy of a dwelling created before or after the relevant date in so far as
    its operation is not affected by Part 4,
    Residential Tenancies Act [2004.]
    2004
    PT. 4 S. 56 [No. 27.]
    74 shall be construed as including a term enabling its termination by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part (but, in the case of a tenancy that is for a fixed period, unless it provides otherwise, only where there has been a failure by the party in relation to whom the notice is served to comply with any obligations of the tenancy).


  • #119
    daithi7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭daithi7


    Exactly, the unequal treatment of the landlord and tenant is yet again demonstrated here. I mean why not have the same conditions for both parties, that would just make sense.

    Also the notice periods required, landlords have to give up to 6 months notice afaik after several years, yet tenants can just give 1 month notice. Why?

    Essentially, we now have Landlord Tenant legislation & an RTB that is clearly populist, biased, based on (a minority of) Dublin experiences, and doesn't serve the vast majority of landlords ,& hence the market & potential tenants, at all well.

    It's a complete fustercluck tbh... that's what happens when governments try to meddle in private contracts.


  • #120
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    daithi7 wrote: »
    Exactly, the unequal treatment of the landlord and tenant is yet again demonstrated here. I mean why not have the same conditions for both parties, that would just make sense.

    Also the notice periods required, landlords have to give up to 6 months notice afaik after several years, yet tenants can just give 1 month notice. Why?

    Essentially, we now have Landlord Tenant legislation & an RTB that is clearly populist, biased, based on (a minority of) Dublin experiences, and doesn't serve the vast majority of landlords ,& hence the market & potential tenants, at all well.

    It's a complete fustercluck tbh... that's what happens when governments try to meddle in private contracts.

    The notice periods are different because one party can better cope with a short notice period than the other. It will nearly always take a tenant longer to find suitable alternative accommodation than it would for a LL to find a suitable alternative tenant.

    Otherwise, you risk increased homelessness and the associated ills that brings, which most people in society, LLs included, would be against.

    And that's why there's differing treatment for LLs and tenants in the laws. They don't have equal positions of power and the consequences of tenants being exploited by LLs are greater than the consequences of LLs being exploited by tenants. It's good public policy to protect tenants, reduce the incidence of homelessness, and encourage stability.

    As for meddling, that's called regulation, and it's a feature in most businesses to one degree or another. There are laws around buying something as trivial as a chocolate bar in a shop, so I don't know why anyone would think there shouldn't be appropriate regulation in the rental market.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,289 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Marcusm wrote: »
    I’d love you to show me the section of the 1998 Finance Act which contains this? Or are you talking about the IR£500 pa deduction available to renters?

    I agree. I don't believe there was ever a time when one could offset rent paid against rent received. There was a time when properties were swapped, stamp duty was only paid on the difference.


  • #122
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭rightmove


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The notice periods are different because one party can better cope with a short notice period than the other. It will nearly always take a tenant longer to find suitable alternative accommodation than it would for a LL to find a suitable alternative tenant.

    Otherwise, you risk increased homelessness and the associated ills that brings, which most people in society, LLs included, would be against.

    And that's why there's differing treatment for LLs and tenants in the laws. They don't have equal positions of power and the consequences of tenants being exploited by LLs are greater than the consequences of LLs being exploited by tenants. It's good public policy to protect tenants, reduce the incidence of homelessness, and encourage stability.

    As for meddling, that's called regulation, and it's a feature in most businesses to one degree or another. There are laws around buying something as trivial as a chocolate bar in a shop, so I don't know why anyone would think there shouldn't be appropriate regulation in the rental market.

    I would strongly disagree with your analysis. I was a LL and a tenant for the most of the last 10 years. The LL now is nearly in the position of gratitude that the tenant actually pays the rent whilst the LL might not be able to get back a huge financial asset if the tenant acts the maggot. I never felt as vulnerable as a tenant.


  • #123
    Xterminator
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,757 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    In a democracy if you dont like the laws and think they are unfair you can lobby your TD to change them. propose objective changes to regulations and how that will benefit society as a whole and see how many people you can convince of the need for change and the impact your proposed change will have.

    That does not change the fact the eviction ban, is a time limited measure taken in a time of national crisis where measure introduced affected almost all businesses, venues, facilities and amenities. 533,000 people were claiming the covid payment at one stage! Yes landlords are effected, but then at least they still have a potential income. So many businesses do not have any income but still have costs. So many people have lost their jobs/will lose their jobs.

    The title & OP of this thread is to lament the ability to issue a termination notice has been suspended for a limited time! Some perspective here please!


  • #124
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭rightmove


    Xterminator wrote: »
    In a democracy if you dont like the laws and think they are unfair you can lobby your TD to change them.
    Ah now.... that unbelievably innocent. They are too busy pandering to offset the lefties and keep the REITs happy. Some perspective please!!!


  • #125
    daithi7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭daithi7


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The notice periods are different because one party can better cope with a short notice period than the other. It will nearly always take a tenant longer to find suitable alternative accommodation than it would for a LL to find a suitable alternative tenant.

    Otherwise, you risk increased homelessness and the associated ills that brings, which most people in society, LLs included, would be against.

    And that's why there's differing treatment for LLs and tenants in the laws. They don't have equal positions of power and the consequences of tenants being exploited by LLs are greater than the consequences of LLs being exploited by tenants. It's good public policy to protect tenants, reduce the incidence of homelessness, and encourage stability.

    As for meddling, that's called regulation, and it's a feature in most businesses to one degree or another. There are laws around buying something as trivial as a chocolate bar in a shop, so I don't know why anyone would think there shouldn't be appropriate regulation in the rental market.

    2009 -2014 were a brutal period for providing the housing needs of others i.e. being a landlord. All properties had fallen massively in value, rents fell hugely also, mortgages often outdid the rent, most landlords were under water, and properties could take an age to rent.

    Yet the government did Nada. Didn't so much as change the tax laws, with a credit, or offset, nada.

    Back to today, treating both parties to a letting contract similarly wrt notice periods, etc is just plain fair & common sense. Anyone who tries to say anything different is biased or has an agenda imho.

    Back to your chocolate bar analogy, the government doesn't try to dictate a maximum selling price (while providing no minimum or maximum drop allowed btw), the shop keeper & shopper have equal opportunity to walk away, on similar terms, etc This is clearly not the case for the private letting market.

    Clearly the property letting laws & regulation in this country are populist reactionary nonsense. They are taking out the private landlord, who was the main provider of the housing needs of others, and people wonder why people struggle to find places to rent!?

    Jeez, like isn't it obvious!?


  • #126
    perfectkama
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    any policies have been at the behest of the homeless charity industry zero consultation with LLs fact
    The anti eviction lobby want no acceptable reason for eviction that includes non payment of rent but i fear it will be permanent.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    rightmove wrote: »
    I would strongly disagree with your analysis. I was a LL and a tenant for the most of the last 10 years. The LL now is nearly in the position of gratitude that the tenant actually pays the rent whilst the LL might not be able to get back a huge financial asset if the tenant acts the maggot. I never felt as vulnerable as a tenant.

    Just because that's been your experience doesn't mean it's universal. In the last few years my landlord has tried to evict us just to repaint a few rooms, and increase the rent by text message with just three weeks notice.

    Only a few pages back we had a poster recommending the OP get some "assistance" in removing the tenant from his property, and I'm sure that poster is not alone in thinking that's how problems with tenants should be handled. We had to change the law to allow the RTB to apply sanctions and penalties because LLs were breaching RPZ legislation. And there's been more than enough coverage of illegal evictions to know it happens.

    I know these types of LLs are the minority, but the balance of power overall is still in the favour of the LL. 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?


  • #128
    DubCount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭DubCount


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    In the last few years my landlord has tried to evict us just to repaint a few rooms, and increase the rent by text message with just three weeks notice.
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Just because that's been your experience doesn't mean it's universal.

    ...


  • #129
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    I'll ask you one thing lads, have you ever seen a homeless landlord?


  • #130
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    daithi7 wrote: »
    Back to today, treating both parties to a letting contract similarly wrt notice periods, etc is just plain fair & common sense. Anyone who tries to say anything different is biased or has an agenda imho.

    I've explained why it's not "common sense" and I notice you haven't responded to my comments and instead just repeated what you said before.

    As for biases and agenda, guilty as charged. I have a bias and agenda against homelessness. I think most people do.
    daithi7 wrote: »
    Back to your chocolate bar analogy, the government doesn't try to dictate a maximum selling price (while providing no minimum or maximum drop allowed btw), the shop keeper & shopper have equal opportunity to walk away, on similar terms, etc This is clearly not the case for the private letting market.

    It's not the case because there isn't an equivalence. The point you seemed to have missed is that if the government can put some form of regulation around buying something trivial, you can believe they'll do more when it comes to people renting homes.

    There is never going to be a government that will employ a laissez faire attitude to the rental market or treat it in the same way as a transaction in a corner shop. People simply won't vote them in. So if it's really a problem for you that you're operating in a regulated market, then I think it's best for you in the long term to get out of the market.


  • #131
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    DubCount wrote: »
    ...

    I presume your point here was to try and show that my experiences aren't universal either, except I already said this further on when I acknowledged that bad landlords are in the minority.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Tasfasdf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 660 ✭✭✭Tasfasdf


    callmehal wrote: »
    I'll ask you one thing lads, have you ever seen a homeless landlord?

    Have a read of the OP:rolleyes:


  • #133
    curious minds
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭curious minds


    NuMarvel wrote: »

    I know these types of LLs are the minority, but the balance of power overall is still in the favour of the LL. 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?


    ...i have posted this because I lost my home...for an indefinite amount of time...could be years as many lobby for a permanent or years long eviction ban.

    i don't see how the balance of 'power' is the way you say it is
    also suffering a financial loss can be enough to loose a house/home.

    I also rented for 10 years...and because I wanted a home...i saved and bought one ...it was extremely hard and now I don't have much right to it. NOW A tenancy agreement is worth more than home ownership. I don't feel like this is a democracy anymore If the eviction ban lasts for a year or two or more . The right to to inhabit my only home is gone.


  • #134
    Hudur
    Registered Users Posts: 34 ✭Hudur


    This was well hidden info. RTE didn't mention a word about ban extension to 20th of July.

    Ahh well, it's not too easy for renters either. My moving date was in April as landlord sold the apartment, but I am still here. Last couple of weeks I have been trying to get apartments in Daft that cost 400-600e more than my current place, but no luck yet. Today is only the 2nd viewing I have been invited (first one had over 50 people in the same 15min window).

    If OP is in Dublin, it's not very easy for your tenant to leave even if he wanted to. There are no free places where to move before eviction ban ends.


  • #135
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    callmehal wrote: »
    I'll ask you one thing lads, have you ever seen a homeless landlord?

    Without thinking particularly hard- I can name 15-20 homeless landlords- living on friends couches, floors, and in some cases sleeping in their cars. Many of these are people who heeded the call for Irish medical staff to return home to help with the Covid crisis- not imagining for a moment that they'd not be allowed to reclaim their home from their tenant- and in serious trouble because of this. There are two doctors currently practicing in teaching hospital- whose families, including children, are in emergency accommodation.

    I am also personally familiar with a number of other Irish (including siblings) who came home (working in finance, IT and other sectors)- who similarly are unable to get their homes back- and have been living rather tenuous existences for the past 13 weeks.

    These are all people who went to great lengths to get back to Ireland- in some cases heeding calls from the HSE for qualified nursing and medical staff to return home.

    Calls to Threshold are responded to as follows: 'Sure- can't you just go abroad again?', and the RTB 'Unfortunately under current emergency legislation there is nothing that can be done to get your home back, if you are homeless we recommend you present to your local authority to seek emergency accommodation'.

    Just because you don't know a homeless landlord- doesn't mean there aren't plenty of them out there, you may very well encounter one or more of them if you have to pay a visit to your local A&E..........


  • #136
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    curious minds wrote: »
    ...i have posted this because I lost my home...for an indefinite amount of time...could be years as many lobby for a permanent or years long eviction ban.

    i don't see how the balance of 'power' is the way you say it is
    also suffering a financial loss can be enough to loose a house/home.

    I also rented for 10 years...and because I wanted a home...i saved and bought one ...it was extremely hard and now I don't have much right to it. NOW A tenancy agreement is worth more than home ownership. I don't feel like this is a democracy anymore If the eviction ban lasts for a year or two or more . The right to to inhabit my only home is gone.

    Losing the roof over your head is a massive blow and life changing. That's why there has to be rules around how that happens.

    And that's why the legislation was changed with the onset of the pandemic. Because as bad as being evicted is, it's only worse when the country is on lock down in the midst of a pandemic.

    As for your own situation, it has to be said it's not the norm. Most LLs aren't renting out their only property so this scenario probably wasn't considered, even by the LL bodies the government met with. I honestly don't want to see you homeless, and if the ban is extended again, I'd be in favour of exceptions that account for these types of situations.

    And maybe that's an approach you should take, if you haven't already. Get in touch with your local TDs to ask them for exemptions in any future extensions. It couldn't hurt, and it's more likely to bring change than not contacting them.


  • #137
    curious minds
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭curious minds


    The_Conductor

    thanks for sharing this. It means a lot..... I hope people do realize it is a real problem caused by the eviction ban
    and I find it extremely unfair given the sacrifices one makes to save up for a deposit and get a mortgage that has to be payed regardless


  • #138
    DubCount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭DubCount


    It should be the Governments responsibility to provide accommodation to those who cant pay or wont pay. The idea that private landlords should foot the bill for months and years (pandemic or not) is grossly unfair and is killing rental supply in Ireland. If you want "protective measures", you should pay for "protective measures". The idea that a LL can give the correct statutory notice to get their own property back, and this can be ignored with the protection of the State, and the encouragement of state sponsored charities, is bonkers.

    Maybe you would feel differently if you had a cuckoo in your own nest.


  • #139
    mikemac2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    OP,

    If I was you I would inform the tenant that their lease is up at the end of the 6 months and that they will vacate your property. They are not getting a choice in this. Tell them they need to start looking for a new place.

    There are people you can hire that will assist them in moving out on time on the eviction day. They'll even help move some of their possessions out of the property. I've heard that they can be rough sometimes and possessions get broken or lost. Your tenant should bear that in mind.

    That's my advice.

    Are we hiring Viper Foley here?

    Sure g´wan and tell the OP to hire a few heavies to break the arms of the tenant

    Too much binge watching of the Sopranos during lockdown I think


  • #140
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭rightmove


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Just because that's been your experience doesn't mean it's universal.
    sure sure
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    In the last few years my landlord has tried to evict us just to repaint a few rooms, and increase the rent by text message with just three weeks notice.

    how far did your LL get with all this ....nowhere I would guess
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    . We had to change the law to allow the RTB to apply sanctions and penalties because LLs were breaching RPZ legislation. And there's been more than enough coverage of illegal evictions to know it happens.

    The rtb is a pro tenant org paid for by the LL and the LL will get nothing from taking a case in the end. The RPZ legislation is a joke beyond belief and only lead to empty property and LL stuck below market with the "smart" ones already at the top when the legislation was introduced. Its unconstitutional and should have bee challenged
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    , but the balance of power overall is still in the favour of the LL. 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?

    I think losing the rights over an asset worth hundreds of thousands which might be you only property while you rent somewhere else ( which I didnt call my home ....it was a house I rented, while I rented out my "HOME"). The most undesirable thing is for the law to have no regard for the rights of the owner who actually paid for the brick and mortar in the first place


  • #141
    B00MSTICK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭B00MSTICK


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I know these types of LLs are the minority, but the balance of power overall is still in the favour of the LL. 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 this is the problem, all it takes is either party to be a arsey and suddenly no-one is protected.

    We've all seen posts of people (a) overholding and not paying rent and (b) people having issues with heating/damp/mold/broken appliances etc. and the LL doing nothing for weeks/months, potentially forcing the tenant to leave.

    We do have licensees from time to time via rent-a-room. Its our own place and is a new build so you can be sure the light/heat etc. all works because we need it and the tenant has no rights if they act-up, it works perfectly well as long as both parties are sound.

    From a LL perspective, there is no other "business" I can think of that a signed agreement/contract can be broken by one party with no real repercussions to them. In a perfect world, the OP's tenants would abide by the contract and be out at the specified time/date. Although some LLs are just greedy feckers, most of them will need to charge a premium for the hassle should a tenant make a fuss. Again in a perfect world, where everyone follows the agreement, that would reduce the risk for LLs and hopefully lead to a reduction in pricing or at least bring more accommodation to the market.

    I'd say the vast majority of LLs would be happy with a yearly housing inspection at a cost of say €X00 (depending on nr. of brs?) to ensure everything is working/house is in good repair but with the added right of being able to evict a non-paying tenant in short order. The same inspection will allow any preventative maintenance to be pointed out too. This could also be used to check that boilers etc. are serviced at the appropriate interval. Again some other rule around responding to certain tenant requests in a timely manner etc.

    It wouldn't need to be mandatory but if you don't follow the process then you don't get the protection. The landlord and tenant have both mutually agreed that they are happy without those protections.

    From a tenant perspective, the tenant should be safe in their accommodation for the length of the contract unless there is a major/urgent need for them to vacate at the request of the landlord. If this happens they should be compensated depending on the nature of the emergency.
    If I know that my contract is ending in 2 months you are damn right I will be looking for a place right now unless I agree an extension with the LL.

    In essence, the rules should be there to punish the mis-behaving LLs and Tenants and protect the decent ones.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    rightmove wrote: »
    how far did your LL get with all this ....nowhere I would guess

    The laws wouldn't allow him to do so, so no he didn't get anywhere. Which kind of proves my point as to why we need laws that protect tenants.

    Do you think he should have been able to do those things?
    rightmove wrote: »
    The RPZ legislation is a joke beyond belief and only lead to empty property and LL stuck below market with the "smart" ones already at the top when the legislation was introduced. Its unconstitutional and should have bee challenged

    I suspect that a challenge wasn't brought because most people would realise the constitution would allow something like this, especially in the rental market as it is.

    But if people really do believe it is unconstitutional, they should bring a challenge. If they win, they may even be able to make a case for the state to carry the costs of the case.
    rightmove wrote: »
    I think losing the rights over an asset worth hundreds of thousands which might be you only property while you rent somewhere else ( which I didnt call my home ....it was a house I rented, while I rented out my "HOME").

    So as someone who was a tenant and a landlord at the same time, which would have been the worse of the two: your tenant overstaying/not paying rent or your landlord evicting you illegally?
    rightmove wrote: »
    The most undesirable thing is for the law to have no regard for the rights of the owner who actually paid for the brick and mortar in the first place

    The law does have regard for the rights of the owner. But it balances those rights against the rights of the tenant as well. You may not like the outcome of how those rights are balanced against each other, but that's not the same as saying the owner's rights aren't considered at all.


  • #143
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭rightmove


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The laws wouldn't allow him to do so, so no he didn't get anywhere. Which kind of proves my point as to why we need laws that protect tenants.

    Do you think he should have been able to do those things?

    no it proves my point that the LL was not in a position to bully the tenant and the tenant therefore won here so........

    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I suspect that a challenge wasn't brought because most people would realise the constitution would allow something like this, especially in the rental market as it is.

    But if people really do believe it is unconstitutional, they should bring a challenge. If they win, they may even be able to make a case for the state to carry the costs of the case.
    now seriously ...!!!It was challenged in 1980 and that worked. Yes I like the 1000's of other small LL's have time for high court challenges..get real!!

    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So as someone who was a tenant and a landlord at the same time, which would have been the worse of the two: your tenant overstaying/not paying rent or your landlord evicting you illegally?

    My LL asked me to leave as he was selling. No official notice...nothing....It was his gaff...I knew it was his gaff and I didnt get the correct notice. I told him I would see if I could get out in 3 months. I nearly had to uproot schools and location etc as the stress was heavy but it was not the LL fault there was no where to rent. As far as I was concerned acting the maggot was only going to prolong the problem that I needed to sort. In the end I had an issue when I was leaving (just at the end of the 3 months) and was not able to exit on the date. My LL said "sure we wont see you on the street". I said another few weeks and finally moved. I was sound with him and he was with me when I needed it (no threshold, no rtb, just ppl behaving like adults)

    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The law does have regard for the rights of the owner. But it balances those rights against the rights of the tenant as well. You may not like the outcome of how those rights are balanced against each other, but that's not the same as saying the owner's rights aren't considered at all.

    nonsense... Although my situation as a tenant was difficult, when I tried to get my tenants out to sell it was actually way more stressful. I had too much riding on the property and them play acting and not paying rent. I think you might not be long enough in the tooth to see both sides. I have!

    Ask yourself one question; why when rents are at an all time high are LL exiting in droves. That is the key question. I have given you the answer to that


  • #144
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    rightmove wrote: »
    no it proves my point that the LL was not in a position to bully the tenant and the tenant therefore won here so........



    now seriously ...!!!It was challenged in 1980 and that worked. Yes I like the 1000's of other small LL's have time for high court challenges..get real!!




    My LL asked me to leave as he was selling. No official notice...nothing....It was his gaff...I knew it was his gaff and I didnt get the correct notice. I told him I would see if I could get out in 3 months. I nearly had to uproot schools and location etc as the stress was heavy but it was not the LL fault there was no where to rent. As far as I was concerned acting the maggot was only going to prolong the problem that I needed to sort. In the end I had an issue when I was leaving (just at the end of the 3 months) and was not able to exit on the date. My LL said "sure we wont see you on the street". I said another few weeks and finally moved. I was sound with him and he was with me when I needed it (no threshold, no rtb, just ppl behaving like adults)




    nonsense... Although my situation as a tenant was difficult, when I tried to get my tenants out to sell it was actually way more stressful. I had too much riding on the property and them play acting and not paying rent. I think you might not be long enough in the tooth to see both sides. I have!

    Ask yourself one question; why when rents are at an all time high are LL exiting in droves. That is the key question. I have given you the answer to that

    So, in summary, your positions are:

    1) Laws preventing LLs from bullying tenants show we don't need laws to protect tenants
    2) RPZ legislation is DEFINITELY unconstitutional, but not a single LL has time to bring a case to have it struck down, even though it could result in all LLs making more profit
    3) Illegal evictions aren't worse because in your case your LL said he wouldn't see you homeless.

    I think the flaws in those opinions speak for themselves, so we'll just leave it there.


  • #145
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,523 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Are you sure they are tenants and not licences. Where is you stuff
    If you have kept a room then surely it's a living with the landlord situation and you can just continue to live there.


  • #146
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭rightmove


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So, in summary, your positions are:

    1) Laws preventing LLs from bullying tenants show we don't need laws to protect tenants
    2) RPZ legislation is DEFINITELY unconstitutional, but not a single LL has time to bring a case to have it struck down, even though it could result in all LLs making more profit
    3) Illegal evictions aren't worse because in your case your LL said he wouldn't see you homeless.

    I think the flaws in those opinions speak for themselves, so we'll just leave it there.

    no

    on point 1 I never said that I was responding to your point and I was correct in that the LL didnt get further

    on point 2 there is much discussion on it here over the years. Go educate yourself on the threads. But of course we are making all this stuff up in the spur of the moment.

    on point 3 again I never said that. Just ppl can behave like adults if they choose

    I have been both sides of this but you refuse to give any difference to this. The only area I felt renters are unfairly treated was with deposits and the desecration of the LL esp if the tenant fulfilled their side. The anti landlord stuff
    is actually having the impact of increasing rents and reducing supply. I have been a LL and and tenant i know what I am talking about. I never thought I would be arguing on the side of LL's but I am. I sold up, my property was empty for months in the middle of a housing crisis because of the anti LL gov policy


  • #147
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    beauf wrote: »
    Whats a proper plan?

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

    He could have just rented out rooms and kept one for himself. Not to get into any debate about licensees/tenants etc just leaving all that aside if he kept a room he would be entitled to access it and live in the house even if it was with the other people for a while.

    This is not uncommon either I was just taking to someone yesterday who started renting a room in a house where the owner is working abroad and only staying their occasionally.


  • #148
    daithi7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭daithi7


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    .

    The law does have regard for the rights of the owner. But it balances those rights against the rights of the tenant as well. You may not like the outcome of how those rights are balanced against each other, but that's not the same as saying the owner's rights aren't considered at all.

    The point is that it feels like the owner's rights aren't considered at all.... why? Because this is populist regulation, with clear anti landlord laws, implemented by an anti landlord government agency (the RTB), that ironically LLs are forced to pay, for that have been egged on by homeless charities to bring in all sorts of one sided terms into state mandated contracts.... hence why private landlords are leaving the sector in droves, and why the market is even more short of privately owned properties for let.

    Ultimately tenants and the market are paying for this government/ charity advocate created flustercluck!!!

    That's what happens when you keep hurting the golden goose that provides the rented housing needs of others for generations.....


  • #149
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    rightmove wrote: »
    on point 1 I never said that I was responding to your point and I was correct in that the LL didnt get further

    So when I posted examples of LLs not being able to exploit tenants because the laws didn't allow it, your point was that the LLs weren't able to exploit the tenants. Okay then. :confused:
    rightmove wrote: »
    on point 2 there is much discussion on it here over the years. Go educate yourself on the threads. But of course we are making all this stuff up in the spur of the moment.

    The amount of discussion here is irrelevant. The fact is that no one has brought a challenge, even though a victory could greatly benefit all LLs.
    rightmove wrote: »
    I have been both sides of this but you refuse to give any difference to this. The only area I felt renters are unfairly treated was with deposits and the desecration of the LL esp if the tenant fulfilled their side. The anti landlord stuff
    is actually having the impact of increasing rents and reducing supply. I have been a LL and and tenant i know what I am talking about. I never thought I would be arguing on the side of LL's but I am. I sold up, my property was empty for months in the middle of a housing crisis because of the anti LL gov policy

    I've given great thought to both sides of this discussion. I know it's not easy for LLs and I'm sure there are changes that could be made to laws without unduly jeopardising tenant rights.

    But my initial posts were making the point that LLs have more responsibilities because they have a greater position of power and in the scheme of things, the consequences to tenants of LLs acting up are greater than vice versa.

    And none of the responses I've received have been able to make a cogent argument to the contrary. The main response has been to say LLs have it hard too, which I am not disputing.


  • #150
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭rightmove


    NuMarvel you just like to wander and you are totally on the tenant side. LL had power once but no more, if the tenant acts up the LL is screwed. If it was worth it I would still be a LL. The figures speak for themselves and you must not have the life experience to see that. Did you ever own a property?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    brisan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    daithi7 wrote: »
    Exactly, the unequal treatment of the landlord and tenant is yet again demonstrated here. I mean why not have the same conditions for both parties, that would just make sense.

    Also the notice periods required, landlords have to give up to 6 months notice afaik after several years, yet tenants can just give 1 month notice. Why?

    Essentially, we now have Landlord Tenant legislation & an RTB that is clearly populist, biased, based on (a minority of) Dublin experiences, and doesn't serve the vast majority of landlords ,& hence the market & potential tenants, at all well.

    It's a complete fustercluck tbh... that's what happens when governments try to meddle in private contracts.
    The Government had to intervene in private contracts because landlords were doing what they wanted when they wanted with no standards
    Not all landlords but a fair percentage
    Do you think some Gov minister woke up one morning and decided to screw landlords
    The present day landlords are paying for the sins of their predecessors


Advertisement