Media article suggests rent control may be on the cards

the groutch

no solid details yet, but it sounds like there's going to be some sort of attempt at rent controls

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/rent-relief-proposed-in-the-upcoming-budget-697307.html

cue a mass exodus of landlords from the market, making the housing situation even worse.

McGrath5

There was no talk of "rent certainty" 5 or 6 years ago when landlords where facing declining rents. :rolleyes:

<mod snip>

snubbleste

That's been flagged since January

testaccount123

the groutch wrote: »

cue a mass exodus of landlords from the market, making the housing situation even worse.

Can you explain why landlords will exit the market because they cannot keep raising rents?

Any rent controls should be restricted to a given time-frame and specific high demand areas and be periodically reviewed.

athtrasna

Mod note The politics forums can be found here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1657

MarkAnthony

Rent controls - as in X place is X a month are unconstitutional. Any attempt to do that in Ireland would quickly fall foul of the courts. What they are trying to do is stop big hikes, fecklessly as usual! The only people this will affect are people paying under market rent who, for what ever reason, suddenly has a LL that wakes up and wants to charge market rates, such as apartment which are sold. Fair enough but hardly a bid deal.

4ensic15

There already is rent control. Landlords can't be forced to accept less than the market rent for their properties without compensation. This is what the Supreme Court said about an attempt to cap rents in 1981 when a bill was passed to try and lessen the impact of the ending of rent controls.

"Section 9 of the bill stated that, where the rent of such dwelling was fixed by the District Court, the rent payable by the tenant of the dwelling was to be the amount of his former rent plus, in the year 1982, 40% of any increase awarded by the District Court, in the year 1983 55% of any increase, in the year 1984 70% of any increase, in the year 1985 85% of any increase, and in the year 1986 and subsequent years the entire amount of the increase.
[1983] The Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1981 182
1 I.R.
S.C.
Pursuant to Article 26, s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Constitution, the President of Ireland referred the bill of 1981 to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question whether the bill, or any provision or provisions of the bill was or were repugnant to the Constitution or to any provision thereof. In pronouncing its decision on the question so referred, it was
Held by the Supreme Court, 1, that there was a rebuttable presumption that the provisions of the bill were not repugnant to the Constitution.
2. That, in the absence of any justification permitted by the Constitution, the provisions of s. 9 of the bill, depriving the persons affected thereby of substantial portions of their proper rents, constituted an unjust attack on their property rights contrary to Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 2, of the Constitution.
Blake v. The Attorney General [1982] I.R. 117 considered.
3. That, accordingly, the provisions of s. 9, sub-s. 1, of the bill were repugnant to the Constitution.
4. That it was not necessary for the Court to pronounce upon any other provision of the bill."

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

There already is rent control. Landlords can't be forced to accept less than the market rent for their properties without compensation.

I wouldn't consider that a rent control in the sense of 'I've watched US TV and a little old lady has an apartment in Manhattan for a tenner a week', which I suspect is what 99% of people consider to be a rent control. Most of the LLs here would be familiar with not charging more than the market rate - as flawed and as nebulous as that is.

The controls currently in place, are granted, a control on rent as is not allowing a contract for sexual services. That said the current situation can be justified on the grounds of not profiteering rather than an actual rent control. Semantics aside though fair play to actually linking the case.

Eugene Norman

4ensic15 wrote: »

There already is rent control. Landlords can't be forced to accept less than the market rent for their properties without compensation. This is what the Supreme Court said about an attempt to cap rents in 1981 when a bill was passed to try and lessen the impact of the ending of rent controls.

"Section 9 of the bill stated that, where the rent of such dwelling was fixed by the District Court, the rent payable by the tenant of the dwelling was to be the amount of his former rent plus, in the year 1982, 40% of any increase awarded by the District Court, in the year 1983 55% of any increase, in the year 1984 70% of any increase, in the year 1985 85% of any increase, and in the year 1986 and subsequent years the entire amount of the increase.
[1983] The Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1981 182
1 I.R.
S.C.
Pursuant to Article 26, s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Constitution, the President of Ireland referred the bill of 1981 to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question whether the bill, or any provision or provisions of the bill was or were repugnant to the Constitution or to any provision thereof. In pronouncing its decision on the question so referred, it was
Held by the Supreme Court, 1, that there was a rebuttable presumption that the provisions of the bill were not repugnant to the Constitution.
2. That, in the absence of any justification permitted by the Constitution, the provisions of s. 9 of the bill, depriving the persons affected thereby of substantial portions of their proper rents, constituted an unjust attack on their property rights contrary to Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 2, of the Constitution.
Blake v. The Attorney General [1982] I.R. 117 considered.
3. That, accordingly, the provisions of s. 9, sub-s. 1, of the bill were repugnant to the Constitution.
4. That it was not necessary for the Court to pronounce upon any other provision of the bill."

Strange decision in a country with income tax and DIRT. Surely the government is depriving me of a substantial portion of my income as agreed in a contract between my employer and myself, and depriving rentiers of a large % their income from rent too. As it is when it taxes my earned interest. This is not a seizure of property.

MarkAnthony

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Strange decision in a country with income tax and DIRT. Surely the government is depriving me of a substantial portion of my income as agreed in a contract between my employer and myself, and depriving rentiers of a large % their income from rent too. As it is when it taxes my earned interest. This is not a seizure of property.

Not really. One is legitimate taxation the other is preventing someone from getting the market rate for something. People forget this country was forged at a time during the rise of communism and the constitution reflects an anti-communist sentiment.

beauf

Will rent controls, make it easier to get buy to let mortgage from a bank. if not rent controls won't help with supply.

Eric Cartman

this can only end two ways - properties all being left at the absolute minimum standards as why try harder for the same money as another landlord who doesn't give a f**k or a date at which they decide to introduce this and every vacant property in dublin getting a massive price hike on daft to up the 'market rate' for the area at the time and piss all over the cap.

Also you'll have a contraction on BTL mortgages being issued , and under valued rentals being brought right to the cap.

Eugene Norman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this can only end two ways - properties all being left at the absolute minimum standards as why try harder for the same money as another landlord who doesn't give a f**k or a date at which they decide to introduce this and every vacant property in dublin getting a massive price hike on daft to up the 'market rate' for the area at the time and piss all over the cap.

Also you'll have a contraction on BTL mortgages being issued , and under valued rentals being brought right to the cap.

Sure those are the only two possible outcomes.

Eric Cartman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Sure those are the only two possible outcomes.

perhaps .

But theres one thing I can 100% promise. Rent controls won't end with 4 bed detached houses in South dublin along the green luas line going for below the RA cap like some fantasists seem to think.

Eugene Norman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

perhaps .

But theres one thing I can 100% promise. Rent controls won't end with 4 bed detached houses in South dublin along the green luas line going for below the RA cap like some fantasists seem to think.

No it might stop people being kicked out of their houses though because of massive increases in rent.

MarkAnthony

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No it might stop people being kicked out of their houses though because of massive increases in rent.

With a huge influx of rent increases before the legislation hits and probably a number of increases that wouldn't have ever happened if it wasn't for the legislation.

Irish property market and knee jerk seem to go together like fish and chips!

Eric Cartman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No it might stop people being kicked out of their houses though because of massive increases in rent.

Considering the landlord owns the house , I think this is a better way of putting it :

No it might stop people being priced out of an available rental property (after their agreement has expired) though because of massive increases in demand by people who can afford more rent for rental properties fitting that profile.

4ensic15

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No it might stop people being kicked out of their houses though because of massive increases in rent.

It might also cause people to be kicked out of their homes so the landlord can get a higher rent.

athtrasna

4ensic15 wrote: »

It might also cause people to be kicked out of their homes so the landlord can get a higher rent.

There are very specific circumstances under which a tenancy can be ended. Landlords are not charities so if they want to maximise their income by legally replacing tenants they should be free to do so.

newacc2015

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No it might stop people being kicked out of their houses though because of massive increases in rent.

The thing is, its not actually their house. Its the landlords house and like any Business he should be allowed to set the price or in this case the rent. If the tenant feels the increase is excessive, their is always the PRTB. But often than not. Its the typical you see on boards of "I started renting a 2 bedroom apartment in Dublin 2 in 2009 for €1200 pm. The landlord wants to increase it to €1500pm. Thats so unfair etc etc". No its not. Your rent is still currently below the market rate and if you arent happy with the price, find somewhere elsewhere

Rent controls arent the solution, increasing supply is. Its just basic economics. But its easier for the Government to blame the private market for its own failures. Social housing should be built for the most vulnerable in society. Yet the Government is just blaming LLs for doing what any other Business would do. Which is increase prices in times of short supply.

Even student accommodation on campus has increased double digits. Yet the TDs dont have an opinion on that, as thats being provided by one of their own organisations.

4ensic15

athtrasna wrote: »

There are very specific circumstances under which a tenancy can be ended. Landlords are not charities so if they want to maximise their income by legally replacing tenants they should be free to do so.

Who said they shouldn't?

the_syco

If the government controls the rent, the landlords will just ask for a larger deposit up front. As per usual, the only losers will be the ones the government are trying to protect.

testaccount123

newacc2015 wrote: »

Rent controls arent the solution, increasing supply is.

Rent controls are indeed a short term solution in high demand areas.