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.

Eviction Ban extended

1…34689…20

Comments

  • #152
    perfectkama
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    lots of good LL b4 less now, new protected tenants rights if i had a house 4 rent I could not rent 2 a family if they cant pay rent state mandates i accept it till a tenant biased quango process a determination with no compensation for loss of rent
    I am finished here to much nonsense..................................pls close


  • #153
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    brisan wrote: »
    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


    It was Simon Coveny one Tuesday morning if I remember correctly.


  • #154
    na1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 921 ✭✭✭na1


    frw5 wrote: »
    And paying humongous rent because you havent inherited a fortune isn't toxic?

    You're confusing the cause and effect.
    The rents are high exactly for the reason that landlords have very few rights,
    and most potential landlords prefer to have the properties empty rather than rent them out.


  • #155
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    brisan wrote: »
    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

    oh and Simon did it a tuesday morning before xmas once the TDs with rental properties had conveniently jacked their properties up to spilling over rates just before the move while the decent LL were stuck on below market forever more. They attacked the nice LL's....who are no longer in the market.....you get what you want sometimes eh!!!


  • #156
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    na1 wrote: »
    You're confusing the cause and effect.
    The rents are high exactly for the reason that landlords have very few rights,
    and most potential landlords prefer to have the properties empty rather than rent them out.

    So what rights do you think LLs should have that they don't have now? And what evidence do you have to show that changing the rights as you'd suggest would bring empty properties back into the market?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So what rights do you think LLs should have that they don't have now? And what evidence do you have to show that changing the rights as you'd suggest would bring empty properties back into the market?

    I think leave it other 12 months and see if the crisis (already the worst in the history of the state) get worse. See how that works out for people.


  • #158
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So what rights do you think LLs should have that they don't have now? And what evidence do you have to show that changing the rights as you'd suggest would bring empty properties back into the market?

    Landlords should have the right to be paid their rent in full and ontime.
    They have the right to assume that the tenant is making every reasonable effort to look after the property.
    They have a right to assume that the tenant is not antisocial in nature and does not antagonise neighbours or others.
    Cognisant of the fact that over 60% of properties are owned by landlords who only let a single property- which very often is their only property- the right of a landlord to move back into their property should be enshrined (particularly for those who own 3 or fewer units).
    Landlords are entitled to a reasonable deposit cognisant of the asset they are letting to the tenant- but must ensure that it is returned in full, save any deductions for abnormal wear or tear on the property, on the elapse of the tenancy.

    If a tenant fails to pay their rent, is antisocial in nature- or causes needless antagonism towards neighbours (like those kids in Cork at the weekend and Lucan over the last 2 days) etc- a landlord should be able to end the tenancy and entitled to vacant possession of the property without having to jump through needless hoops. A landlord can be held responsible for a tenants behaviour- and fined for a tenant's bad behaviour- if a complaint is made by a third party. The flipside of this- is a landlord needs to have the right to expeditiously evict such a tenant. You can't hold a landlord responsible for the bad behaviour of tenants- and simultaneously refuse to allow them to evict the tenants.

    Both landlord and tenant- are entitled to live in peace and not needlessly antagonise or contact one another (for example- its a reasonable assumption that a tenant will change a blown light bulb themselves- but they should immediately report any issues with flooding to their landlord to ensure any damage is kept to a minimum). Its a balancing act- both landlord and tenant have to be fair and reasonable towards one another.

    There should be an assumption that both the landlord and the tenant are fair and reasonable people- unless events prove otherwise- and if either party breach the moral or legal obligations they have towards the other party- there should be immediate consequences- be it a fine, an eviction or whatever. The manner in which its impossible to take prompt actions (by either party, mind) - is appalling, and is stiffling the sector.


  • #159
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    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:



    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.



    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.

    Point 2 is not related to time. It’s cost and news attention.The legal bill for a case of that nature would be massive. The only real ll with enough cash to burn are REITs but unlike tenants and the government, they understand that if they bite the hand that feeds them, the perks afforded to them might go away.Small time ll don’t have a proper body to defend them. Each ll is fighting their own cause and without one major body(ipoa is hap hazard at the best of times and also has lack of funding) to fight for us, nothing will happen.

    Likewise if one individual ll fights this, they will also bring the media attention on them. I for one just want to get on with business and don’t want anyone looking up everything can on me to defame me or bring any type of death threats or stuff of that nature to my family.


  • #160
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    brisan wrote: »
    The present day landlords are paying for the sins of their predecessors

    You could say the the present day tenants are/will pay for the sins also.


  • #161
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So what rights do you think LLs should have that they don't have now? And what evidence do you have to show that changing the rights as you'd suggest would bring empty properties back into the market?

    Good stuff for ll
    -LPT should be an allowable expense.
    -flat rate expense for phone call and driving too and from said rental
    -rent arrears,anti social tenants should be out of the property within 3 months.
    -damage on property/ rent arrears should be actually enforceable with assets sold from the tenant or garnish wages. This should not be over 20years but all within a 1 year period.
    -a proper rtb database where names cannot be taken off this so that ll and tenants alike Can check the naughty list. We would actually have a proper database if ll actually thought they would actually get their money back or actually be able to evict someone. I know for my own cases I have never lodged a dispute over damage even though the highest damage I have experienceD is circa 10k as I knew I would never see the money and have had to pay off tenants to get them out of my house for rent arrears. Having a database like the above would make tenants think twice about this as it would make it very difficult to get a new house.
    -both have to provide equal notice
    -if you sign a contract, you need to abide by this contract.eg reassign a lease to a random person so you get can get your deposit back.


    Good stuff for tenants:
    -deposit scheme held in thirst party body - 3months deposit becomes the norm
    -third party inspects place before and after to avoid disputes of that nature. Funding would come from the interest on the deposit scheme they hold.
    -3-10years leases become the norm. The only way a ll can get out of this contract is compensate the tenant for 6months rent.
    -keep current rpz however it will be less likely that rent will remain static for 5-10years due to fluctuations.

    I think the above provides a few things to both and most importantly it helps the good tenants and ll.



    The above should help supply from 2 aspects. Every year the amount of rental stock is declining. Why is this with record high rents. The above should incentivise existing ll to stay in the market as optics would appear more equal.

    It should also entice new ll to enter the market. It might also allow ex ll to reconsider entering the market if it’s more balanced. In any case both of these should stabilise supply at a minimum or increase supply. Both of which will either slow down rent increases or decrease rent for tenants if supply increases to a good level.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    na1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 921 ✭✭✭na1


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So what rights do you think LLs should have that they don't have now? And what evidence do you have to show that changing the rights as you'd suggest would bring empty properties back into the market?
    Evidence? Do you know how many properties are vacant atm? And do you know the supply rate in a rental market? All these numbers are public.
    People just don't bother renting a house if they risk to loose everything.

    Currently the tenant can literally ruin your house and get away with it, free of charge. (after a lengthy court hearings you can get 10e a week off their dole)

    And those who do risk of renting, they include the risks cost into your rental premiums. Normally they are large landlords who owns many properties, and who can compensate their losses through other rents.


    To bring small land lords back to the rental market they need:

    Right to evict in case of breach of the tenancy agreement (not paying rent, property damage) without bringing tenant to court and waiting for 1+ years with no rent paid

    Right to claim the property damage from bad tenants (currently no insurance companies cover this).
    Do you know why the insurance companies don't insure these case? Exactly for the reason they can't compensate their losses. And if they do, the premiums will be high, so again back for landlords & good tenants to pay for the bad tenants.


  • #163
    na1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 921 ✭✭✭na1


    Fol20 wrote: »
    You could say the the present day tenants are/will pay for the sins also.

    I'd say both landlords and good tenants are paying for bad tenants.

    I personally do know very good tenants couple who keep their rented property at highest standards & even do a small fixes in the house without bothering the landlord.

    And I also heard of very bad tenants refusing to pay and refusing to leave the property.

    If we would have at least a reliable database of tenants with good & bad reputation, this may help lowering the rents. But I don't believe it is possible with many start complaining about these databases as a personal data breach.


  • #164
    gibgodsman
    Registered Users Posts: 563 ✭✭✭gibgodsman


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Good stuff for ll

    Good stuff for tenants:
    -3months deposit becomes the norm


    I agreed with almost everything you said, but this, are you having a laught with this one? With current rent rates, 3 months deposit and first months rent in advance would nearly be a deposit for a mortgage, this will hopefully never be the norm, if I was ever asked for this when going to rent a property I would laugh and walk out. Been in the same property renting for the past 7 years and I will more than likely leave the property in better condition than when I moved in at my own expensive, just because I have a landlord who doesn't bother me and doesn't interfere in my life in anyway but is there when I need him.

    My previous landlord was an absolute nightmare, showing up unexpected constantly, at one stage letting himself in and up to my bedroom while I was in bed because "He thought I had vacated the property" 3 weeks into my lease, after paying the deposit and first months rent he thought I did a runner? For literally no reason. Landlords can be just as band as tenants.


  • #165
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    gibgodsman wrote: »
    I agreed with almost everything you said, but this, are you having a laught with this one? With current rent rates, 3 months deposit and first months rent in advance would nearly be a deposit for a mortgage, this will hopefully never be the norm, if I was ever asked for this when going to rent a property I would laugh and walk out. Been in the same property renting for the past 7 years and I will more than likely leave the property in better condition than when I moved in at my own expensive, just because I have a landlord who doesn't bother me and doesn't interfere in my life in anyway but is there when I need him.

    My previous landlord was an absolute nightmare, showing up unexpected constantly, at one stage letting himself in and up to my bedroom while I was in bed because "He thought I had vacated the property" 3 weeks into my lease, after paying the deposit and first months rent he thought I did a runner? For literally no reason. Landlords can be just as band as tenants.

    3 months are more common in other more developed renters countries like USA and france.

    It is a big commitment(nowhere near a deposit for a house) but I think it would be better for both sides.


  • #166
    na1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 921 ✭✭✭na1


    Fol20 wrote: »
    3 months are more common in other more developed renters countries like USA and france.

    It is a big commitment(nowhere near a deposit for a house) but I think it would be better for both sides.

    The State could step into this.
    The State who is wasting millions providing accommodation for 'most vulnerable'
    can pay deposits for lower paid workers who can't afford 3 months rent, and get the deposits back from landlords.
    It will be much easier from the state to recover deposit money from landlord.


  • #167
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    na1 wrote: »
    The State could step into this.
    The State who is wasting millions providing accommodation for 'most vulnerable'
    can pay deposits for lower paid workers who can't afford 3 months rent, and get the deposits back from landlords.
    It will be much easier from the state to recover deposit money from landlord.

    I think if the government came out with something where they would guarantee the money yet it didn’t lock up 3 months of deposit for the government. This would be ok as well for lower paid workers.mind you the whole premise of this is that the dopoait interest would pay the wages of the people that inspect and mediate the process.


  • #168
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Fol20 wrote: »
    3 months are more common in other more developed renters countries like USA and france.

    It is a big commitment(nowhere near a deposit for a house) but I think it would be better for both sides.


    Ive lived in a good few countries now and I dont think I have ever had to pay less than 3 months rent up front in any.
    Never got furniture in any either.


  • #169
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    Ive lived in a good few countries now and I dont think I have ever had to pay less than 3 months rent up front in any.
    Never got furniture in any either.

    At various stages I've rented in Stenlille in Denmark, Berlin, Amsterdam and Obidos in Portugal. I paid 3 months deposit as standard in all of them (and the only one that was furnished was Obidos in Portugal).

    1 month's rent and furnished seems to be an Irish/UK thing- its not normal anywhere else.


  • #170
    gibgodsman
    Registered Users Posts: 563 ✭✭✭gibgodsman


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    Ive lived in a good few countries now and I dont think I have ever had to pay less than 3 months rent up front in any.
    Never got furniture in any either.

    When you say rent up front, do you mean 3 months going towards a deposit or 3 months rent paid the first month, so you pay not rent until month 4?


  • #171
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Point 2 is not related to time. It’s cost and news attention.The legal bill for a case of that nature would be massive. The only real ll with enough cash to burn are REITs but unlike tenants and the government, they understand that if they bite the hand that feeds them, the perks afforded to them might go away.Small time ll don’t have a proper body to defend them. Each ll is fighting their own cause and without one major body(ipoa is hap hazard at the best of times and also has lack of funding) to fight for us, nothing will happen.

    Likewise if one individual ll fights this, they will also bring the media attention on them. I for one just want to get on with business and don’t want anyone looking up everything can on me to defame me or bring any type of death threats or stuff of that nature to my family.
    Why are you trying to reason with an unreasonable hard left person? The poster clearly has his ideology set in stone. Many posters in this forum fully reflect the populist and simple opinions of people who have only a SUPERFICIAL knowledge of the matter. Every Irish political party is now riding the populist wave which (in my opinion) will soon crash on a massive scale of homelessness for low income people caused by these same populist policies like believing that banning evictions will help (:D:D:D:D) solving the homelessness problem. Their ignorance of the matter is outstanding and their strong opinions on the matter can only be explained by a strong Dunning-Kruger effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


    This thread epitomizes the absolute pit of hopelessness that the Irish rental market has reached. When such a point of no return is reached, the only way to go back to normal status is exogenous (i.e. caused by a massive economic crisis that would take the control of the economy away from the Irish people). I do not see it happening any time soon, what is happening is that Ireland is quickly slipping back to the rental market situation of the 70s (no private rental market, maybe except for a few REITs).


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    GGTrek wrote: »
    Why are you trying to reason with an unreasonable hard left person? The poster clearly has his ideology set in stone. Many posters in this forum fully reflect the populist and simple opinions of people who have only a SUPERFICIAL knowledge of the matter. Every Irish political party is now riding the populist wave which (in my opinion) will soon crash on a massive scale of homelessness for low income people caused by these same populist policies like believing that banning evictions will help (:D:D:D:D) solving the homelessness problem. Their ignorance of the matter is outstanding and their strong opinions on the matter can only be explained by a strong Dunning-Kruger effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


    This thread epitomizes the absolute pit of hopelessness that the Irish rental market has reached. When such a point of no return is reached, the only way to go back to normal status is exogenous (i.e. caused by a massive economic crisis that would take the control of the economy away from the Irish people). I do not see it happening any time soon, what is happening is that Ireland is quickly slipping back to the rental market situation of the 70s (no private rental market, maybe except for a few REITs).

    A few of us got sucked in here to the argument and I should have known better.

    The populist posters are not interested in solutions just the problem. They dont get if one side wins both sides loose.


  • #173
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    na1 wrote: »
    It will be much easier from the state to recover deposit money from landlord.
    If the tenant has no skin in the game, why would they respect the property?


  • #174
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,754 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    It was Simon Coveny one Tuesday morning if I remember correctly.

    there's a saying that hard cases make bad law.

    many posts about tenants and landlords who have been negatively impacted by the current regulations. maybe the new minister for housing will bring some balance


  • #175
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,569 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    People like the OP should be encouraged. People who rent out their property like this provide a home and keep prices down.


  • #176
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    gibgodsman wrote: »
    When you say rent up front, do you mean 3 months going towards a deposit or 3 months rent paid the first month, so you pay not rent until month 4?

    Usually was first and last months rent plus deposit.
    In some places they just call it deposit.

    Basically you are still paying 3 months rent before you set foot in the door.
    Actually in a couple of countries you pay a decorating charge of about €1000 up front too. Its to pay a company to come in and clean and paint everything after your leave. You cant do it yourself. So thats about 4 months before you even get the key. And you start paying rent the minute you walk in the door. At the end they take whatever goes from your deposit. You dont pay the l;ast months rent. And your move out fee is used to do the painting etc.

    When you rent a place there are huge warehouses that you go to to rent furniture. They deliver it and collect it when you are finished with it. For that you pay more money for a deposit and up front rent too.

    I always found the rental system in Ireland very strange. And it just gets stranger every year.


  • #177
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    One consequence of this emergency legislation that landlords cannot sell their property now.

    Its madness.


  • #178
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    One consequence of this emergency legislation that landlords cannot sell their property now.

    Its madness.

    Or reclaim it in order to live in it- even if it the only property that you own.

    Its all well and good protecting tenants- however, there are also some property owners out there who need protection to. I see Threshold are actively suggesting all the Irish doctors and nurses who came home to help with Covid- should now leave again (and tough if they want to stay- they most certainly should not have any rights to end tenancies to reclaim properties (ever)).

    The pendulum has swung too far.


  • #179
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,519 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Its all well and good protecting tenants- however, there are also some property owners out there who need protection to. I see Threshold are actively suggesting all the Irish doctors and nurses who came home to help with Covid- should now leave again (and tough if they want to stay- they most certainly should not have any rights to end tenancies to reclaim properties (ever)).

    Are you serious??


  • #180
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Or reclaim it in order to live in it- even if it the only property that you own.

    Its all well and good protecting tenants- however, there are also some property owners out there who need protection to. I see Threshold are actively suggesting all the Irish doctors and nurses who came home to help with Covid- should now leave again (and tough if they want to stay- they most certainly should not have any rights to end tenancies to reclaim properties (ever)).

    The pendulum has swung too far.


    Not only have they scared exisitng landlords out of the market. They have scared new ones from coming in. And they have scared people who were happy to rent their property for 6 months or a year.
    REITS are the only game in town now because of their size and tax treatment. Pretty soon REITs will control the whole market. They are already buying huge sections of well established apartment blocks, as well a whole new ones. Ive seen letters that friends who own apartments have gotten from REITs offering to buy them.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Third party inspects place before and after to avoid disputes of that nature. Funding would come from the interest on the deposit scheme they hold.


    If the landlords were open to giving a third party that power, (amongst all the other benefits you listed), I think it only fair that that inspector also supplies a min/max/average area price information to the tenant, and to advise on what price the inspected accommodation should be.


Advertisement