More fines for landlords..

Seanachai

FrStone wrote: »

If you decide to rent again, you just offer first refusal to your previous tenants to move back in again and thereby avoid any fine.

It's a good measure to avoid landlords trying to get rid of a tenant every year so they can up prices.

However Alan Kellys measures are so watered down they don't do a huge amount for either tenant or landlord.

What's the reason for that though, is it just bad advice from civil servants or is somebody benefiting from it?.

borderlinemeath

conorhal wrote: »

You're falling into the trap of assuming this is about landlords or tenents, it's about electoral optics.

This will drive a lot of landlord's out of the market, yeah there are some unscrupulous ones, but quite often the 'ol I'm selling up tactic (or raising the rent for that matter) is often about removing a problem tennent rather then making more money, because the truth is it's neigh on impossible to get shot of a problem tennent without it costing you 18 months of rent.

I was listening to a Newstalk interview there a few weeks ago that told the heartbreaking tale of a single mother of three about to be evicted into homlesness by a heartless landlord who had hiked her rent by 40% over the past two years.
The intervew was going quite well untill the poorly media trained victim of this landlords greed departed from the script and mentioned that, in her opinion, the landlord just hiked up the rent to force her out because of complaints of anti social behaviour about her kids from other tennents in the apartments. She was aparently 'sick of defending them to her landlord and her neighbours'. When asked if she could stay with family in the meantime she intimated that she 'didn't get on with any of them'. You show me person who's family would rather see them homeless then deal with them and I'll show you sombody you probably don't want to live next to.

Needless to say the interview swiftly concluded when the 'heartless landlord and the desperate tenent' narrative collapsed and the truth of the situaton became obvious. She was being rendered homeless because she was a pain to live next to and had a very combative relationship with both landlord and neighbours, who had clearly had enough of her and were using the only means they had at their disposal to get rid of her.

Sure I know well, luckily the only problem tenants I had moved on swiftly. I haven't raised my rent because the tenant is good - pays on time, keeps the place well and doesn't cause any problems. I see no need to raise the rent for now, I could get a nightmare tenant, or worse still, one that has a chip on their shoulder about paying rent to a "greedy profiteering landlord". I'd far rather have a good relationship with my tenant at under market rent than deal with a begrudging tenant paying the going rate.

seamus

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

If the property becomes available to live in in the first 3 months after the tenancy ends then the landlord is legally obliged to offer the previous tenant first refusal to move back in.

The outgoing tenant will have moved on. The landlord can happily offer them first refusal in the knowledge that the tenant won't care, or pull other strokes to make it look like they did the right thing.
If the tenant is a real pain in the ass, the landlord will leave the property idle for 3 months.

gaius c wrote: »

Yeah to hell with tenants and their rights. Sure they are only cattle to be moved from one milking parlour to the next.

Well this is exactly it.

My point is that these regulations fall painfully short of addressing any problems. Instead of a 5% rise every year, tenants will now get a 10% rise every two years. Which is arguably much harder for tenants to handle.
Instead of being able to make vague statements about selling the house, the landlord only has to sign a couple of documents, but can still evict and not sell the property.

Nothing really solved, at all.

The issue here is security. For tenants, it's about security of tenure. For landlords it's about security of income.

Our standard rental period is 4 years. That's pathetic. Someone who starts renting a property today can only be reasonably sure they'll be there for four years, after which the landlord can ask them to leave for no reason. Even during that four years, the landlord can get them out for relatively spurious reasons.

That's not security. By default the rental period should be ten years, with a certain amount of flexibility allowed for fixed-term leases. It should not be possible to kick a tenant out because you or a family member want to move in. Fnck that. It should not be possible to kick a tenant out because you want to sell. Sell with a sitting tenant, or don't sell at all.

On the other side, the landlord needs reasonable ability to remove non-paying or otherwise costly tenants. This bull**** of having someone sit in your property for two years without paying rent while you wait for the PRTB has to end. Set it up so that if a tenant lodges a complaint with the PRTB, they start paying their rent to the PRTB. If they stop paying, the PRTB instantly closes their case, and the landlord has the power to forcibly evict in 28 days.
If a landlord opens a case, and the tenant refuses to engage or doesn't pay rent to the PRTB, again the PRTB automatically finds in favour of the landlord and the tenant can be evicted after 28 days.

As others have said, an escrow service for deposits, run by the PRTB, is a must. A group insurance scheme for tenants I think would be a better idea. So a tenant pays a small amount of insurance to the PRTB. If the tenant fails to pay their rent or causes massive damage, the landlord can claim against it. The tenants for their part can provide an ID number that landlords can use to make background checks on tenants - previous claims against them, etc - and the PRTB can levy higher premiums on those who've claims against them.

In the end what group insurance would mean is that deposits wouldn't be a requirement at all. The tenant presents their details, the landlord background checks them and off we go. If the tenant cancels their insurance, the landlord gets notified and legally it is automatically assumed that the tenant has given notice of their intention to leave.

gaius c

handlemaster wrote: »

Hardly a intelligent statement to make. Why dont you say all tenants are terrible to deal with.

There's about 20 people to present that case already. I'm merely providing some balance to the discussion.

Fol20

seamus wrote: »

The outgoing tenant will have moved on. The landlord can happily offer them first refusal in the knowledge that the tenant won't care, or pull other strokes to make it look like they did the right thing.
If the tenant is a real pain in the ass, the landlord will leave the property idle for 3 months.
Well this is exactly it.

My point is that these regulations fall painfully short of addressing any problems. Instead of a 5% rise every year, tenants will now get a 10% rise every two years. Which is arguably much harder for tenants to handle.
Instead of being able to make vague statements about selling the house, the landlord only has to sign a couple of documents, but can still evict and not sell the property.

Nothing really solved, at all.

The issue here is security. For tenants, it's about security of tenure. For landlords it's about security of income.

Our standard rental period is 4 years. That's pathetic. Someone who starts renting a property today can only be reasonably sure they'll be there for four years, after which the landlord can ask them to leave for no reason. Even during that four years, the landlord can get them out for relatively spurious reasons.

That's not security. By default the rental period should be ten years, with a certain amount of flexibility allowed for fixed-term leases. It should not be possible to kick a tenant out because you or a family member want to move in. Fnck that. It should not be possible to kick a tenant out because you want to sell. Sell with a sitting tenant, or don't sell at all.

On the other side, the landlord needs reasonable ability to remove non-paying or otherwise costly tenants. This bull**** of having someone sit in your property for two years without paying rent while you wait for the PRTB has to end. Set it up so that if a tenant lodges a complaint with the PRTB, they start paying their rent to the PRTB. If they stop paying, the PRTB instantly closes their case, and the landlord has the power to forcibly evict in 28 days.
If a landlord opens a case, and the tenant refuses to engage or doesn't pay rent to the PRTB, again the PRTB automatically finds in favour of the landlord and the tenant can be evicted after 28 days.

As others have said, an escrow service for deposits, run by the PRTB, is a must. A group insurance scheme for tenants I think would be a better idea. So a tenant pays a small amount of insurance to the PRTB. If the tenant fails to pay their rent or causes massive damage, the landlord can claim against it. The tenants for their part can provide an ID number that landlords can use to make background checks on tenants - previous claims against them, etc - and the PRTB can levy higher premiums on those who've claims against them.

In the end what group insurance would mean is that deposits wouldn't be a requirement at all. The tenant presents their details, the landlord background checks them and off we go. If the tenant cancels their insurance, the landlord gets notified and legally it is automatically assumed that the tenant has given notice of their intention to leave.

You sir should become a politician.. I would love it if all of the above came in, at least its a win win on both sides.It would be much better as well if unfurnished houses became the norm.