Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Anti Eviction Bill

1246

Comments

  • #92
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    It's none of the states business, if the state wants houses it can build them.

    We need a rental market available so ordinary people can easily go and rent a room or a house either short or long term.

    It doesn't need the state involved, I'd rather deal direct with a straight talking landlord than spend months dealing with uncaring civil servants when I'm renting a place.


    I found the opposite. The lls were uncaring. the council cared.


  • #93
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Graces7 wrote: »
    [/B]

    I found the opposite. The lls were uncaring. the council cared.

    There are good and bad people everywhere- just for clarity though- local authority or county council employees- are not civil servants.


  • #94
    DubCount
    Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭DubCount


    utmbuilder wrote: »
    Got mortgage funds today , keys on Tuesday for a new build

    75k base I earn, other half earns too, 2 girls

    32 k deposit with fees and stamp duty


    Over past 7 years was in 3 homes, my daughters between 3 different schools

    First house for invaded with rats, second home wanted 50% increase in rent then evicted when we stated it was right

    3rd home wanted to sell after 2 years

    This is how disgusting it was dealing with small fry landlords thinking they are investment tycoons for a family with means

    LLs deserve every thing they get, they brought this on themselves let's see them make money of any other investment other than 1% on savings less dirt

    The rental market is a basket case. That's not the fault of landlords, that's the fault of government policies.

    I have been a landlord in Ireland for 15 years. Half my property holding was sold in 2018. The rest is going in 2019. I'm boosting my pension investment (government subsidised) and buying shares in REITs and Buying property in other European Counties in stead.

    I'm not the only one...........


  • #95
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    If this bill is not is not killed off are at least severely curtailed at the next stage it is going to cause chaos. Who would be crazy enough to continue paying income tax, PRSI, USC, local property tax, property insurance, maintenance costs and Prtb registration on a property over which they have no longer any control? Have the PBF got a plan B for when property owners pull out in their droves? Many tenants are already highly apprehensive about this. Many landlords who were understandably reluctant to discommode valued tenants are being swayed towards selling up. There will not even be the questionable safety net of the old black market renting/letting arrangement, the nudge nudge wink wink tax avoidance strategy of past generations. Because the one area of this sector that is highly organized by the state is the one that collects the cash! This is the word on the street!


  • #96
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    seamus wrote: »
    On the flipside of that, does that not sound like an extraordinarily unstable position for any rental market to be in, where in theory 40% of tenants could be served with a valid eviction notice tomorrow? That is, 40% of tenants renting in Ireland are currently at risk of eviction. That's insane.

    Should we not be enacting measures which aim to reduce the number of tenants at risk of eviction to single-digit percentages?

    The solution to landlords exiting the market is not to force them to remain. That's an incredibly stupid idea. We should be encouraging sustainable development growth and providing mechanics to stabilise the market and drive investment, not **** it up completely.

    Landlords have had a ridiculous amount of legislative changes made that completely changed the market they entered initially. Who knows what other daft ideas will be forced on them down the line also. Investors detest instability, you'd want your head examined if you entered the rental market as it stands currently.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,271 ✭✭✭fash


    Fol20 wrote: »
    this is what fixed term leases should be used for. If however the government enforce a fixed term lease the way it should be without making giving the landlord something, then its just the same ole thing they have been doing for years that isnt working and making more ll leave the market. At the momwnt fixed leased only give tenants more protections and doesnt do anything for the ll. The best way to implement this is that during a fixed term tenancy.
    Pros for tenant
    Tenant cannot be evicted for renovations,selling of house, ll wants house for family

    Pros for ll:
    Actually make it enforceable that money is garnered from wages(not just 20e but a large sizeable amount) if tenancy is ended early and it doesnt take years for this to be processed
    Or they could implement something where if tenant leave early and rent is not paid, a register is created with a mark against the tenants name. Both have an impact on tenant and at least it would be more fair.

    This way tenants get security of tenure and cannot be evicted during a tenancy, some ll like myself would like to sign 3-5years contracts so its less change overs etc while at the same time knowing that tenants also have something to loose if they forfeit. This way both parties are coming away feeling like they had to comprimise which is the best way a deal should be made.
    I am thinking that the only way things would work in Ireland is where a tenant gets a house owning guarantor to guarantee the tenancy. Hard on foreigners or those without someone to act as guarantor however.


  • #98
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    fash wrote: »
    I am thinking that the only way things would work in Ireland is where a tenant gets a house owning guarantor to guarantee the tenancy. Hard on foreigners or those without someone to act as guarantor however.

    Guarantors would be pointless if it still isnt enforceable. If pwople know they will have to pay it one way or another. Most will just pay up. Right now there is a smakl cohort of people that know how to game the system and destroying the reputation of 99pc of tenants


  • #99
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,271 ✭✭✭fash


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Guarantors would be pointless if it still isnt enforceable. If pwople know they will have to pay it one way or another. Most will just pay up. Right now there is a smakl cohort of people that know how to game the system and destroying the reputation of 99pc of tenants
    If they were a property owner, they should have assets and would be much more identifiable than a "fleet of foot" tenant.
    So claims would eventually be enforceable, against someone with assets with statutory interest on those claims.


  • #100
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    fash wrote: »
    If they were a property owner, they should have assets and would be much more identifiable than a "fleet of foot" tenant.
    So claims would eventually be enforceable, against someone with assets with statutory interest on those claims.

    I can see where your coming from with this but there are too many things that would make this difficult to operate

    Administration would be quite high for tenants as they need to show their guarantors assets more than likely produced through some form of legal document. How can ll double check its legit? What about if a tenant isnt able to get a guarantor. No one will ever let to them and im sure the government would do some sort of anti discrimination thing again in relation to this. Even if they have an asset such as their ppr. What can a landlord do? Even banks with all their hifh flying solicitors struggled to take back a ppr. I havent heard of any other country doing this for letting either so nothing to base it off. If they just properly implement existing rules instead of making it more complex, it would be more paletable.


  • #101
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,271 ✭✭✭fash


    Fol20 wrote: »
    I can see where your coming from with this but there are too many things that would make this difficult to operate

    Administration would be quite high for tenants as they need to show their guarantors assets more than likely produced through some form of legal document.
    higher yes- that is not the landlord's problem especially in a situation where there is a scarcity of rental property. In any case, once the procedure is up and running, there is less administration.
    Fol20 wrote: »
    how can ll double check its legit?
    you could get an affidavit if you absolutely had to. Confirmation of salary from company.
    Fol20 wrote: »
    What about if a tenant isnt able to get a guarantor.
    tenant's problem.
    Fol20 wrote: »
    No one will ever let to them and im sure the government would do some sort of anti discrimination thing again in relation to this.
    It's not really the sort of issue the government can mess with. It is not a discrimination issue - and the landlord has a very legitimate interest in ensuring that someone with assets can pay. The call instead might be for the government to act as "guarantor of last resort" or something similar- which would be equally good from a LL's perspective. In any case, there would be several years while guarantees were in place before it became so big that the government would notice (and even then there is nothing/little objectionable about it).
    Fol20 wrote: »
    Even if they have an asset such as their ppr. What can a landlord do?

    Even banks with all their hifh flying solicitors struggled to take back a ppr.
    The difficulty the banks had was to kick the old owners out where property was in negative equity. In reality, you would probably end up with an attachment order or something - where they pay out of a salary. But at least you have a more settled target and one who had assets.
    I havent heard of any other country doing this for letting either so nothing to base it off. If they just properly implement existing rules instead of making it more complex, it would be more paletable.
    The UK does- especially for students etc. Also has organisations acting as guarantor if you can't find others. (You pay for it as a form of insurance).


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    A lot of landlords would love to have long-term leases with fair and reasonable rents and a government guarantee. The landlord with a type of government contract. This would be in tenants' interests also. There is a lot of hostility out there due mainly to greed and also misunderstanding. Earlier this year a Tv programme exposed the horrendous conditions of a property in Dublin where tenants were living like sardines and health and safety was a joke! The so-called landlord made a brief appearance. Is this how the general public views people who let out a house? Surely everyone has a friend, colleague, sibling, cousin , aunt or uncle who is a "landlord"!


  • #103
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    The solution to landlords exiting the market is not to force them to remain. That's an incredibly stupid idea. We should be encouraging sustainable development growth and providing mechanics to stabilise the market and drive investment, not **** it up completely.

    Landlords have had a ridiculous amount of legislative changes made that completely changed the market they entered initially. Who knows what other daft ideas will be forced on them down the line also. Investors detest instability, you'd want your head examined if you entered the rental market as it stands currently.

    While the legislative changes have been poorly handled - it's actually common for whatever field of endavour one enters to change from what it was initially when you enter.

    One dramatic one that springs to mind for me is Taxis.

    That business has changed hugely - the cars, the availabile communications technology (getting jobs via apps like my taxi).

    And the change from pre 2000 with restricted numbers of taxi plate numbers to the market been opened up.

    So it's not realistic to expect the market to stay the same


  • #104
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    fash wrote: »
    higher yes- that is not the landlord's problem especially in a situation where there is a scarcity of rental property. In any case, once the procedure is up and running, there is less administration.

    you could get an affidavit if you absolutely had to. Confirmation of salary from company.

    tenant's problem.


    It's not really the sort of issue the government can mess with. It is not a discrimination issue - and the landlord has a very legitimate interest in ensuring that someone with assets can pay. The call instead might be for the government to act as "guarantor of last resort" or something similar- which would be equally good from a LL's perspective. In any case, there would be several years while guarantees were in place before it became so big that the government would notice (and even then there is nothing/little objectionable about it).


    The difficulty the banks had was to kick the old owners out where property was in negative equity. In reality, you would probably end up with an attachment order or something - where they pay out of a salary. But at least you have a more settled target and one who had assets.

    The UK does- especially for students etc. Also has organisations acting as guarantor if you can't find others. (You pay for it as a form of insurance).

    I still think it would be highly ineffective though unless engorcement is improved. Now days even people woth assets. Ll would rarely chase it as its so difficult.

    An insurance policy would be interesting. Potentially to stop the tenant from not paying it a month in. Lets say rent is 1k per month and insurance is another 20pm. The tenant should pass this to the ll so they have full control over payment. The insurance would be linked to the tenant and not the ll however if a tenant doesnt pay. The premium would obviosly go up in their next rental


  • #105
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    Ironically, the worst pain in the neck for a landlord is to have a tenant nicely settled in, hoping they'll stay for a long time,utilities in their name, agreements drawn up etc when suddenly they say they have to leave. Usually a good reason such as a new job or suddenly getting their own place. Long reliable tenancies are a landlord's dream.That usually entails a fairly modest rent because that's what keeps renters feeling happy and not exploited. Unfortunately a lot of tenants thought they had this happy arrangement but the landlord proved to be an opportunist and ejected them when the chance to get a higher price came along. Sold for thirty pieces of silver! :(


  • #106
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    Im in a situation where I have tenants in but will want them out as soon as another property is sold.

    Their lease is up in the next few weeks so should I send them notice now that I want the house back.

    It may take months to sell the other house so really it would suit to have rent coming in until the sale goes through but this proposed new legislation is scary. I think I will give the tenants the required notice next week, ie 42 days and then leave the house empty. I dont want to be caught paying them six months rent, Jesus!!!!!!I would prefer the house was left empty for the next six months.


  • #107
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    While the legislative changes have been poorly handled - it's actually common for whatever field of endavour one enters to change from what it was initially when you enter.

    One dramatic one that springs to mind for me is Taxis.

    That business has changed hugely - the cars, the availabile communications technology (getting jobs via apps like my taxi).

    And the change from pre 2000 with restricted numbers of taxi plate numbers to the market been opened up.

    So it's not realistic to expect the market to stay the same

    There's a difference between a taxi fare and a months rent. You can stop being a taxi driver, you can't stop as a landlord.


  • #108
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    It's very difficult to decide what to do in your case Tretorn. A lot of people are of the opinion that this will never be made law. Then you would be causing unnecessary problems for yourself and for the tenants. This is typical of the sort of difficulty that will be caused by this ill-thought out measure. You intended to live in your own property and now that is in doubt.


  • #109
    Squatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭Squatter


    tretorn wrote: »
    Im in a situation where I have tenants in but will want them out as soon as another property is sold.

    Their lease is up in the next few weeks so should I send them notice now that I want the house back.

    It may take months to sell the other house so really it would suit to have rent coming in until the sale goes through but this proposed new legislation is scary. I think I will give the tenants the required notice next week, ie 42 days and then leave the house empty. I dont want to be caught paying them six months rent, Jesus!!!!!!I would prefer the house was left empty for the next six months.

    You'd probably be prudent to do so.

    It's completely absurd that you should be put into that situation, but nowadays FG are so windy about homelessness (sic) that if tenants demanded that landlords provided free weekly blowjobs and/or colonic irrigation, they'd probably immediately legislate accordingly. :(


  • #110
    sdanseo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,233 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Squatter wrote: »
    You'd probably be prudent to do so.

    It's completely absurd that you should be put into that situation, but nowadays FG are so windy about homelessness (sic) that if tenants demanded that landlords provided free weekly blowjobs and/or colonic irrigation, they'd probably immediately legislate accordingly. :(

    That's one point of view. There has to be a balance between tenant rights and those of landlords.

    I would hold the view that the bill as proposed is punitive to landlords. But I have to contextualise that view with the fact that I live at home because I can't afford to pay > €1,200 a month for a 1 bed apartment in or near Dublin.

    A balance is required and the simple fact is the government needs to concentrate on how it can induce a dramatic increase in the supply of housing, ideally through private development rather than another Ballymun, instead of focusing on populist, patch-job bills like this which will help the established tenant in the short term but do nothing for the medium term goal of building an additional 30k units.


  • #111
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    Many landlords would be happy to have a tenant there for the six years term, even indefinitely once the rent is being paid. But if the state intends to go down that road he/she would need to be indemnified against the possible anti-social or even criminal behaviour which might occur on property still owned by the landlord if the situation were to change. At present the property owner has the option to remove tenants within a reasonable period of time if there are concerns, and at no personal cost. I mean behaviour which might place one in an invidious position with neighbours, activities which might entail the landlord being sued, not to mention damage to property. Many landlords in the past have actually died leaving a house complete with tenants to a family member. Once they were reasonable people there was no problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    l5auim2pjnt8qx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭l5auim2pjnt8qx


    tretorn wrote: »
    Im in a situation where I have tenants in but will want them out as soon as another property is sold.

    Their lease is up in the next few weeks so should I send them notice now that I want the house back.

    It may take months to sell the other house so really it would suit to have rent coming in until the sale goes through but this proposed new legislation is scary. I think I will give the tenants the required notice next week, ie 42 days and then leave the house empty. I dont want to be caught paying them six months rent, Jesus!!!!!!I would prefer the house was left empty for the next six months.

    I would let the tenant know you won't be extending the lease but you will be giving them 42 days to stay on if needed ,Serve the Notice last day of tenancy it will come into effect dated from the 1st day after the lease ends, duration of 42 days given the tenant the opportunity to stay or go within a legal timeframe.Make sure you have a signed Declaration and signed by a Solicitor to each individual name on the lease otherwise it will be invalid.

    Many Landlords if not all will be in your shoes don't get caught out.


  • #113
    Sarn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭Sarn


    In the short term, this proposal, whether successful or not, is likely to cause more harm than good.
    tretorn wrote: »
    Their lease is up in the next few weeks so should I send them notice now that I want the house back.
    ...I think I will give the tenants the required notice next week, ie 42 days and then leave the house empty. I dont want to be caught paying them six months rent, Jesus!!!!!!I would prefer the house was left empty for the next six months.

    Have a read of this thread to make sure you give them a valid notice of termination. I presume they have been there longer than 6 months or are at the end of their Part IV tenancy? If not there are only certain specific grounds for serving a notice to terminate a tenancy.


  • #114
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    They are there almost twelve months.

    The only reason for renting the house was to pay nursing home fees as the Fairdeal scheme is so expensive. Its a great deal if you arent a property owner because most of the cost is levied on the value of the house even though the elderly person who owns the house may not be wealthy at all and in fact may have less disposable income than someone renting all their lives.

    The house is required for a family member to live in and it is a family home. The owner has passed away so any rent now will taxed at probably forty per cent now and we no longer have the nursing home fees to write off against this, the fees were almost five thousand a month.

    I am going totalk to the letting agent on Monday and I will download the relevant form off the RTB website.

    I didnt realise I would need a solicitors involvement.

    None of the family need this worry and stress now on top of bereavement.


  • #115
    l5auim2pjnt8qx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭l5auim2pjnt8qx


    tretorn wrote: »
    They are there almost twelve months.

    The only reason for renting the house was to pay nursing home fees as the Fairdeal scheme is so expensive. Its a great deal if you arent a property owner because most of the cost is levied on the value of the house even though the elderly person who owns the house may not be wealthy at all and in fact may have less disposable income than someone renting all their lives.

    The house is required for a family member to live in and it is a family home. The owner has passed away so any rent now will taxed at probably forty per cent now and we no longer have the nursing home fees to write off against this, the fees were almost five thousand a month.

    I am going totalk to the letting agent on Monday and I will download the relevant form off the RTB website.

    I didnt realise I would need a solicitors involvement.

    None of the family need this worry and stress now on top of bereavement.

    Sample Declaration needs to be attached to the Notice of Termination in order for it to be valid, just bring it in to your Solicitor it will take 2 mins ( Solicitor or peace commissioner).

    Sample Declaration

    Statutory Declaration for Landlord intending to sell the dwelling
    I, [Insert Name], do solemnly and sincerely declare that I intend, within a period of three months
    after the termination date, to enter into an enforceable agreement to transfer to another, for full
    consideration, the whole of my interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling and I
    make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and accurate.
    [Declarant to Sign Here] ……………………………………..
    Declared before me ………………………….. a [practising solicitor] [notary public] [commissioner for
    oaths] [peace commissioner] [person authorised by [insert authorising statutory provision]
    ………………………………. to take and receive statutory declarations] by [Insert Name of Declarant]
    Who is personally known to me / who has been identified to me by ……………………………… who is
    personally known to me and who has certified to me his/her personal knowledge of the declarant.
    Or
    The identity of the declarant has been established by me by reference to a [Insert Identifying
    document*] containing a photograph of the declarant.
    This …………. day of …………….. 2016 at …………………….. [insert place of signature]
    ____________________________
    [Signature of Witness]
    *Approved Identifying Documents
    1. Passport issued by the authorities of an issuing


  • #116
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    If the person who owned the house has died and the inheritor wants to move into the house would we still need a statutory declaration signed by a solicitor.

    What would you expect to pay for a solicitor to sign this declaration. We made a minor change to a will, solicitor visited the elderly person in the home, and drafted up a new will. He charged us 150 euros for this, is this the norm.


  • #117
    Squatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭Squatter


    tretorn wrote: »

    What would you expect to pay for a solicitor to sign this declaration. We made a minor change to a will, solicitor visited the elderly person in the home, and drafted up a new will. He charged us 150 euros for this, is this the norm.

    That seems a pretty reasonable price for his time and expertise. A plumber would probably have charged you more!


  • #118
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    He didnt really now that I think about it draft up a new will, he added one person to the "residue."

    He drove about ten minutes to get to the nursing home.

    If this is the going rate its fine, I just wasnt sure.


  • #119
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    Not so long ago the only expenses in letting a house were the income tax(around 40%), the insurance, and any maintenance that might arise. Then, gradually, came along USC, Local Property Tax, PRSI on rental income and PRTB registration. It all adds up. For people who had speculated at inflated prices, and bought to let on a tight budget, doing the sums became very challenging. When they saw the opportunity to secure higher rents they did so. Often to the detriment of the tenant, unfortunately. To others letting is a business therefore you get as much as you can irrespective of your outlay. There are also property owners who take a laid-back approach. They just want someone who will pay them a modest rent and look after the house. The state could handle this situation in a manner acceptable to all. Greed should be nipped in the bud but people's right to property respected and protected.Instead of which people on either side of the divide are being whipped into a frenzy.


  • #120
    MicktheMan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭MicktheMan


    :mad::mad::mad:
    We are a landlord since '94. We're not accidental. We invested in the private rental sector (note, invested, not speculated) to provide for our family (pension and also the option of a place to live for our kids going to college). We sacrificed a lot over the years to enable us have these investments. We were very fortunate in that we never had a bad tenant and we never needed to withhold any portion of a deposit. However, we have become totally disillusioned with all the government meddling in the private rental market over the last decade not to mention the tarring of all landlords in the press and this latest bill will be, for us, the last straw.
    We had 3 units. We now have 2 but one is not being let out; it is being used by one of our college going children. So we have one 1 bed apartment rented to a nice decent lady who is well into her 3rd part IV tenancy. We had no intention of disturbing her in her home. However, this "bill" is scary to the point of us being forced to re-evaluate the whole situation. This is what we're seriously considering:
    1. The apartment being used by our child will not be returning to the rental market so will either be used by family as needed in the future and/or sold.
    2. Our long term tenant will unfortunately receive a valid termination notice soon with a termination date perhaps 2+ years into the future to allow us time to see what happens with this bill and if any sanity might return to the situation. What this will give us, I believe, is a get out of jail card to allow us to sell with vacant possession without penalty in the case that this madness actually becomes law. The termination notice can always be rescinded if this bill doesn't become law.

    TL;DR We're out if this bill's in.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    giving licencees rights is a terrible idea, the amount of people who can only convince the wife its a good idea to take in a student under the basis of 'sure if theyre a bother then out on their ear they go'

    also this business about paying tenants 6 months rent. Do they want there to be any rental houses at all.


Advertisement