Making renting a better option

अधिनायक

Most people seem to rent in Ireland as a stop gap until they get enough cash to buy. The landlords get a high turnover of tenants with associated vacant periods and hassle. It would be more feasible to never buy if there was a degree of stability. I wonder could this happen if residential long term renting became more like commercial leases.

eg
You pay some key money say 10K for a 10 year lease.
You agree to independently arbitrated rent reviews at certain intervals based on market rates.
You agree the refurbishment rights and costs for the lease.

Would this not be better for landlord and tenant as the landlord would get some guarantee of future rental income from a long term tenant and the tenant would get some fixity of tenure and the right to refurbish to their own taste.

I would consider renting long term if a contract like this were possible.

What do you think?

whizzbang

This doesn't seem too different from what we have today

Once you have stayed in a place for 6 months you automatically have a 4 year lease. In that time the landlord is allowed to try and raise the rates to market levels once a year.

If you wanted to make long term rentals a reality I think we need to go with the French (I think) model of fixed rent for 5 years. This is what will really let people be comfortable in the proprty. Otherwise they run the risk of the market price increasing and them being kicked out of their home. Otherwise people can't budget into the future etc.

अधिनायक

The problem with the current legislation is that the landlord can terminate the agreement at fairly short notice on a whim. Some of the grounds allowed for termination are as follows:

• the landlord intends to sell the dwelling in the next 3 months
• the landlord requires the dwelling for own or family member occupation
• the landlord intends to refurbish the dwelling
• the landlord intends to change the business use of the dwelling.

The above reasons can easily be faked and would not be acceptable in a commerical lease. eg if you were running a shop and the landlord told you to shut your business in 28 days so he could change the wallpaper.

I don't see how selling the property is grounds for lease termination. Again this surely doesn't happen on commercial leases. The property should be sold with tenants or the landlord could offer to buy the tenants out of the lease.

The above clause that allows a landlord to terminate an agreement because he feels like moving himself or a family member into the property makes a joke of the entire legislation. Imagine you were renting an office building and the landlord decided to kick you out as he wanted to let his brother run a business from your desk. The implication of the legislation is that the rights of a tenant are always less than those of the landlord and that the landlord cannot be held to any fixed period agreement. The unintended result is that residential letting does not attract long term tenants, with consequent problems for landlords.

What would be fair would be a market rent for a fixed period without any possibility of termination unless the agreement was broken (non-paymemnt of rent, damage to property etc).

Whizzbang, I think it's not a good idea to introduce rent control as it doesn't work as seen in many cities around the world including Paris.

FillSpectre

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

The above reasons can easily be faked and would not be acceptable in a commerical lease.

What is the advantage to the landlord to fake these things?
These reasons are possible but how often is it actually causing a problem?
In a comercial lease the tenant can't quite easily either so if you want to bring in strict controls they will have to apply to tenants as well.
It also a lot easier to sell a comercial property with tenants.

whizzbang

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

What would be fair would be a market rent for a fixed period without any possibility of termination unless the agreement was broken (non-paymemnt of rent, damage to property etc).

Whizzbang, I think it's not a good idea to introduce rent control as it doesn't work as seen in many cities around the world including Paris.

I absolutely agree we need better tennant rights, I guess I would be concerned that the owner could turf the renters out if they refused an increase in rent. Ie "Rent has doubled pay or get out". Unless owners were only allowed to increase rent at the rate of inflation or something?

Calina

FillSpectre wrote:

These reasons are possible but how often is it actually causing a problem?

well anecdotally, the first lease I had in Ireland ended because the landlord wanted to do major reconstruction work on the house. However, he gave me one year's notice and did actually do the work. Currently, he qualifies as the best landlord I have had in this country to date.

and the last two leases I had were ended because the landlords concerned wanted to sell their properties.

Personally, I would say yeah, it's a problem. It has caused me major headaches.

whizzbang

FillSpectre wrote:

What is the advantage to the landlord to fake these things?

• They can intimidate tennants by saying "I'm thinking of selling, unless you pay more rent"
• They can ditch the tennants at short notice if they find another tennant who may pay more.
• They can ditch tennants who complain about thing the landlord should fix
• They can ditch tennants who starting looking for tax relief
• They can ditch tennants who don't send them a Christmas card... the list is endless

अधिनायक

FillSpectre wrote:

What is the advantage to the landlord to fake these things?

I think it's a long-term disadvantage to landlords that they have these rights. I believe it makes renting a less attractive prospect to the kind of tenants landlords would like to have.

These reasons are possible but how often is it actually causing a problem?

I don't know how often it happens but knowing that a landlord could turf my family out on a whim before the agreed term of the lease is enough to dissuade me from renting.

In a comercial lease the tenant can't quite easily either so if you want to bring in strict controls they will have to apply to tenants as well.

It wouldn't be attractive to short term tenants who could remain with the current arrangements but it would suit someone who wants to rent for 5/10 years. At present there doesn't seem to be a feasible option for those tenants who want to rent long term.

It also a lot easier to sell a comercial property with tenants.

That's because long term commercial tenants are a better deal for landlords than the current arrangements with short term residential tenants. This is my point.

Calina

whizzbang wrote:

I absolutely agree we need better tennant rights, I guess I would be concerned that the owner could turf the renters out if they refused an increase in rent. Ie "Rent has doubled pay or get out". Unless owners were only allowed to increase rent at the rate of inflation or something?

Currently they are only allowed to raise rents up to market level and market level hasn't been moving much lately.

whizzbang

Calina wrote:

Currently they are only allowed to raise rents up to market level and market level hasn't been moving much lately.

true, but unfortunatly "Market levels" is a very ambiguous term, I know my landlord has tried to say local rents are 200 euro more than what I'm paying just because they are up on daft for that. that doesn't mean they were rented for than. I think it would be good to have a less ambiguous figure.

FillSpectre

Sorry guys that is paranoid talk not reality.

Whizz your possibilities are funnily so and kind of ignores the law bit. If somebody threatens to kick you out for wanting tax back how is that going to help? Wouldn't the tenant definitly report him and be done for tax evasion and terminating tenancy under false pretence.

A landlord can beat you too but it still does not mean they can get away with it.

How many incidents are actually happening as you are both so a fraid of? I'll even take stories your heard down the pub.

It sounds like you are making up reasons not to rent rather than actual legitimate dangers.

whizzbang

FillSpectre wrote:

How many incidents are actually happening as you are both so a fraid of? I'll even take stories your heard down the pub.

It sounds like you are making up reasons not to rent rather than actual legitimate dangers.

Fair point on tennant reporting a tax evader, but all the others are possibilities. that is not to say they are happening now, but could happen in the future.

These are families homes we are talking about, nobody should be able to hold them much influence over them.

Calina

whizzbang wrote:

• They can intimidate tennants by saying "I'm thinking of selling, unless you pay more rent"
• They can ditch the tennants at short notice if they find another tennant who may pay more.
• They can ditch tennants who complain about thing the landlord should fix
• They can ditch tennants who starting looking for tax relief
• They can ditch tennants who don't send them a Christmas card... the list is endless

If they are not registered, a tenant can bring them to the attention of the local council and PRTB anyway - the landlord loses either way.

Don't get me wrong - there are inadequacies in Irish tenant protection legislation still, but it has improved radically in recent times.

FillSpectre

Calina wrote:

However, he gave me one year's notice and did actually do the work.

and the last two leases I had were ended because the landlords concerned wanted to sell their properties.

Personally, I would say yeah, it's a problem. It has caused me major headaches.

A years notice sounds reasonable and nothing to complain about

How much notice did the others give you?

The people selling did they sell?

A personal problem doesn't make it a national problem but point taken it has effected you

whizzbang

Calina wrote:

Don't get me wrong - there are inadequacies in Irish tenant protection legislation still, but it has improved radically in recent times.

yep, definite improvements have been made. But I would like to see some more!

Calina

FillSpectre wrote:

A years notice sounds reasonable and nothing to complain about

How much notice did the others give you?

The people selling did they sell?

A personal problem doesn't make it a national problem but point taken it has effected you

You'll notice I pointed out that that particular landlord is still the best I have dealt with.

I am pretty sure that both other properties were sold.

अधिनायक

FillSpectre, do you think that the possibility of being thrown out at short notice does not dissuade long term renters such as families with kids in school?

I was asked to leave a flat years ago because the rent had fallen so far behind the market that the landlord preferred to start afresh rather than have the embarrassment of asking me for a huge increase. I negotiated a new rent with him in the end- but initially he had fed me some story about selling up. A lot of Irish landlords are very amateur.

FillSpectre

whizzbang wrote:

Fair point on tennant reporting a tax evader, but all the others are possibilities. that is not to say they are happening now, but could happen in the future.

These are families homes we are talking about, nobody should be able to hold them much influence over them.

Actually I find none of your points valid with the exception of the first which is a valid reason for any person to decide to sell a loss making business.

Writing about possible risks on reasonable legislation when it is not happening could be considered prudent but it sounds like parnoid thoughts.

First off nobody has said it has been used as intimidation and as I said violence could be used but it is still illgeal as would be what you are suggesting. It would be provable as such and not easy to fake without mass finacial loss.

It really sounds like you are looking for reason not to trust rental property.

In a shop I would suspect you are more likely to get a rude customer than a rude memeber of staff as customers expect people to do as they want.

I think it is logical to assume the customer is the tenant. You see people quite often mention how they want to get revenge on a landlord for some minor slight.

I don't rent and haven't for a while but two people I lived with absolutley hated the landlord over nothing and were planning on things to do when they left that would be issue in a while so they would get the deposit back.

FillSpectre

Calina wrote:

You'll notice I pointed out that that particular landlord is still the best I have dealt with.

I am pretty sure that both other properties were sold.

I did notice but I also noticed you didn't mention the notice you were given when people were selling! If both properties were sold then nobody was being treated baddly or intimidated as suggested.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

FillSpectre, do you think that the possibility of being thrown out at short notice does not dissuade long term renters such as families with kids in school?

It could if it was happening a lot but I have yet to hear or see anything suggesting it is a frequent problem. What is this short notice? Didn't they change notice so it is not just a month

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

I was asked to leave a flat years ago because the rent had fallen so far behind the market that the landlord preferred to start afresh rather than have the embarrassment of asking me for a huge increase. I negotiated a new rent with him in the end- but initially he had fed me some story about selling up. A lot of Irish landlords are very amateur.

I don't understand what this story means or represents.
As I have stated it does not appear to be an issue yet you want to legislate further on it. If somebody acts illegally as your landlord would be in current laws he would be liable for prosecution. What would the point be of another law?

Calina

FillSpectre wrote:

I did notice but I also noticed you didn't mention the notice you were given when people were selling! If both properties were sold then nobody was being treated baddly or intimidated as suggested.

Please check your private message inbox.

FillSpectre

Calina wrote:

Please check your private message inbox.

I don't get why you sent me a private message to tell me anything.

Sufice to say the legislation protected you and some landlords and their agents weren't very good at customer service. People are also semi complient by not sigining leases etc...

No intimidation as suggested and no actual misuse of legislation. Property owners decided to sell their property and they are allowed to do so.

अधिनायक

FillSpectre wrote:

It could if it was happening a lot but I have yet to hear or see anything suggesting it is a frequent problem.

OK we have a difference of opinion. I believe that the ability of landlord to terminate a lease early whether commonly exercised or not dissuades long term renters and you don't.

What is this short notice? Didn't they change notice so it is not just a month

Notice periods are 112 days after 4 years. But why should the landlord hold any right to terminate the lease agreement early without good reason? Particularly as you believe this option is exercised so rarely. A family with local jobs and kids in the local schools cannot live comfortably with the threat of the disruption of having to find new accommodation. Eviciting good tenants does not make good business sense, but many landlords are not business people and the law encourages them to feel OK about kicking out their tenants for any number of reasons before the terminationof an agreed lease period.

As I have stated it does not appear to be an issue yet you want to legislate further on it. If somebody acts illegally as your landlord would be in current laws he would be liable for prosecution. What would the point be of another law?

We disagree on whether it is an issue. I did not suggest further legislation. A number of provisions in the current legislation legitimise the idea of early termination on spurious grounds such as when the landlord's family wishes to live in the property. I guess the legislation was drafted with good intentions but I believe it is harmful to all sides.

I am suggesting that a new lease contract for long term residential renters should become the norm between landlords and tenants as it would offer benefits to both sides. However I am not sure that such a contract would be legal given the existing legislation.

Cantab.

FillSpectre wrote:

I did notice but I also noticed you didn't mention the notice you were given when people were selling! If both properties were sold then nobody was being treated baddly or intimidated as suggested.

In fairness, I don't see why a landlord shouldn't be allowed to tell people to leave his property at reasonable notice.

If the tenant feels the statuatory notice period is too short, they should negotiate a more suitable lease with the landlord or letting agency. Simple as that. Enough talk of tenants being treated badly, intimidated etc.

Calina

FillSpectre wrote:

I don't get why you sent me a private message to tell me anything.

Sufice to say the legislation protected you and some landlords and their agents weren't very good at customer service. People are also semi complient by not sigining leases etc...

No intimidation as suggested and no actual misuse of legislation. Property owners decided to sell their property and they are allowed to do so.

It is immaterial whether you understand why or not. The point is I chose not to have particular details of my business dealings on a public forum. You don't appear to be able to respect that. If you did, you would have replied privately.

I will close by saying that I don't particularly appreciate having to remind people I am paying of their obligations under the leases they sign and current legislation. Yes it protected me - after I forced the issue.

I'm of the opinion that although tenant protection has improved in this country over the past number of years, it is still far from mature.

Calina

Cantab. wrote:

In fairness, I don't see why a landlord shouldn't be allowed to tell people to leave his property at reasonable notice.

If the tenant feels the statuatory notice period is too short, they should negotiate a more suitable lease with the landlord or letting agency. Simple as that. Enough talk of tenants being treated badly, intimidated etc.

Enforcing the statutory period can be problematic.

अधिनायक

Cantab. wrote:

In fairness, I don't see why a landlord shouldn't be allowed to tell people to leave his property at reasonable notice.

The essence of lease or rental is the transfer of control of property for a fixed period of time in exchange for money. It is unfair to terminate this agreement early with no compensation.

FillSpectre

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

OK we have a difference of opinion. I believe that the ability of landlord to terminate a lease early whether commonly exercised or not dissuades long term renters and you don't.

I get your beleif but you have yet to say why it is a bad thing other than it makes you nervous. I doubt many people see those reason as unreasonable as you do.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

Notice periods are 112 days after 4 years. But why should the landlord hold any right to terminate the lease agreement early without good reason?

Becasue the tenant has the right to do the same. You are only looking at this from one side.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

Particularly as you believe this option is exercised so rarely. A family with local jobs and kids in the local schools cannot live comfortably with the threat of the disruption of having to find new accommodation. Eviciting good tenants does not make good business sense, but many landlords are not business people and the law encourages them to feel OK about kicking out their tenants for any number of reasons before the terminationof an agreed lease period.

Tenants don't keep leases and can exit with little or no consequnces. AS it makes good business sense to keep these people why do you think the landlord is trying to get rid of them? You aren't even aware how often it is executed why are you so afraid of it?

The reasons for such rules are simple. THe majority of landlords in Ireland are small investors and do no have masses of resources to pay for anothers individual's rights. The reason it is possible in other countries such as Germany is large businesses own the rental property and or state agreements were made with building.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

We disagree on whether it is an issue. I did not suggest further legislation. A number of provisions in the current legislation legitimise the idea of early termination on spurious grounds such as when the landlord's family wishes to live in the property. I guess the legislation was drafted with good intentions but I believe it is harmful to all sides.

We don't disagree on it being an issue, you claim it is an issue and I am asking for proof it is or at least a sign it is. You might be claiming some odd fear on peoples' minds who rent but again that is being paranoid. The current legislation realises who rents property and acknowledges landlords' rights. The reason for family memeber rule is to acknowledge why people buy. Many landlords buy property for family memebers in the future. If legisaltion did not cover landlords they wouldn't exist and many people need to rent.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

I am suggesting that a new lease contract for long term residential renters should become the norm between landlords and tenants as it would offer benefits to both sides. However I am not sure that such a contract would be legal given the existing legislation.

The legislative change you are suggeting as contracts can't over rule the law. The tenant would need to be tied in as with the landlord is which is the problem. You have assume landlords are the bad guys as opposed to private individuals providing a service

FillSpectre

Calina wrote:

It is immaterial whether you understand why or not. The point is I chose not to have particular details of my business dealings on a public forum. You don't appear to be able to respect that. If you did, you would have replied privately.

Well sending them to a stranger who does not want private messages makes it material to me and does not keep it private. For what ever reason Calina decided to send me this I see nothing important to keep it private and it is relevant to what was said

SMcCarrick wrote:

I disagree. Calina's private PM has been deleted from this post.
If you have a problem with this- please take it to PM.
Regards,

SMcCarrick

Shouldn't have been rude.

अधिनायक

FillSpectre wrote:

ITenants don't keep leases and can exit with little or no consequnces.

I am proposing a long term variant on standard leases that would not allow for early termination by either side. Tenants would need the right to sublet just as in commercial leases.

Quoting another user's PM having been asked not to is a nasty thing to do and I won't reply to posts from you in future on any subject.

FillSpectre

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

I am proposing a long term variant on standard leases that would not allow for early termination by either side. Tenants would need the right to sublet just as in commercial leases.

Quoting another user's PM having been asked not to is a nasty thing to do and I won't reply to posts from you in future on any subject.

Stick your head in the sand then. If the user hadn't have been rude I would not have done it and they may learn a leason or two. I neither asked or wanted the information.

As tenants don't take the 4 year leases they can I see no logic in your statement to increase the lease possibility. You are affraid for no reason and people don't want it.

Afuera

That's pretty low FillSpectre publishing Calina's private message when she already stated that she wished for it to remain private.

As regards the issue of tenants rights in Ireland, I think they are very weak when compared to most other developed countries. The arrangement is currently skewed in favour of the landlord and I think if there is any chance of a long-term rental market to develop in Ireland certain guarantees need to be provided.

I'm currently living in Spain where there are two main types of leases. One is for short term (12 months) and works similar to the way we have it in Ireland. The other type of lease is for a longer term and gives more protection to the tenant as well as normally giving a longer term tenant with less hassles. A tenant looking for a secure place to rent can find it in Spain (if they are able to find a place with a long-term lease) whereas in Ireland they are always open to the changing plans of the landlord.