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

Options
12467…20

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Dav010 wrote: »
    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.

    He couldn't have evicted the tenants in March. An eviction is the ejectment of a person from the premises.
    All he could have done was issue a Notice of Termination, which the tenants could have challenged in the RTB and could keep going with appeals and court hearings for years. Once there is a dispute before the RTB or the courts the tenancy continues.


  • Options
    #93
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    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.

    How would you feel if the Government said you must go to work even if your employer stops paying you?

    Unscrupulous Tenants who take advantage of this current regulation will never pay the rent back.

    Surely my suggestion spreads the pain of non payment for a vital service across all the tax payers, and since its good for society you should have no problem with it.


  • Options
    #94
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    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.

    Yes in certain circumstances, but not in the OP's case. As soon as the eviction ban is lifted, the OP will be well within his rights to kick them out. They know this and the landlord moving back into the house would obviously add an element of haste to the situation.


  • Options
    #95
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users Posts: 3,967 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    You need to call the RTB and explain your situation to them and see if they are covered by the ban. You might find they aren't but from the sound of it either way they will dig their heals in so get a solicitor and open a case with the RTB


  • Options
    #96
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    LawBoy2018 wrote: »
    Yes in certain circumstances, but not in the OP's case. As soon as the eviction ban is lifted, the OP will be well within his rights to kick them out. They know this and the landlord moving back into the house would obviously add an element of haste to the situation.

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Graham wrote: »
    Would the OP have been able to predict Coronavirus 6 months ago?

    Can you register tenancies of less than 6 months with the RTB?

    All tenancies are supposed to be registered within 28 days of their commencement. Tenancies shorter than 28 days have to be registered before they end.


  • Options
    #98
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


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

    Yes, but on what grounds? Find me one instance whereby the RTB has forced a landlord to accommodate tenants who refused to leave their residential home, I'll wait...


  • Options
    #99
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    LawBoy2018 wrote: »
    Yes, but on what grounds? Find me one instance whereby the RTB has forced a landlord to accommodate tenants who refused to leave their residential home, I'll wait...

    The RTB have found many Notices of termination invalid. Look at their website. Whether it is the landlords residential home or not is irrelevant. The tenants can challenge the notice and the tenancy will continue until the appeal/courts process is finished.


  • Options
    #100
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    How would you feel if the Government said you must go to work even if your employer stops paying you?

    Unscrupulous Tenants who take advantage of this current regulation will never pay the rent back.

    Surely my suggestion spreads the pain of non payment for a vital service across all the tax payers, and since its good for society you should have no problem with it.

    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.


  • Options
    #101
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    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.

    The best plan in fact the only plan in many cases is not to be a landlord. The OP could have went down the Air BnB route because no matter where the dwelling is you are allowed to use your PPR for that purpose for X amount of months a year, I forget how many, using an Air BnB service.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,717 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #103
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #105
    phantasmagoria
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #106
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #107
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #108
    DubCount
    Registered Users Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #109
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #110
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #111
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,004 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    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
  • Options
    #112
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 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.


  • Options
    #113
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #114
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #115
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #116
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,184 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #117
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #118
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #119
    daithi7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #120
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #121
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement