Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

beauf

Graham wrote: »

Local alternative housing adapted specifically for their needs sounds like a good solution. Even more so if the necessary support can be provided on site.

Apart from the massive issues in that sector.

Its vastly more expensive than keeping them in their own home and independent as long as possible. Which is why the fairdeal scheme, takes the cost out of your home.

pilly

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Why not? I haven't seen the ESRI research but what in particular is in question for you?

Past experience, intuition and common sense. How many times have they set deadlines for the modular housing and those deadlines were missed by over a year? Most of it not yet complete. And that was supposed to be a rapid solution!!

I can see maybe 18,000 units STARTING next year but that's far from meaning that they are provided. Look around the country, do you see enough land breaking for 18,000 units?

beauf

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Why not? I haven't seen the ESRI research but what in particular is in question for you?

Well you have to look whats been built in the last 2yrs in the middle of a crisis.

Housing is a more serious challenge. The problems confronting the Irish housing market are extensively covered in the Irish media and most agree that a shortage of supply is the key concern.

The figures are very stark. There is a medium to long-term requirement to build approximately 25,000 housing units per annum nationally, including 7,000 units in Dublin. But actual completions have fallen well short of this. Total completions in 2013 were just 8,300, a little over 11,000 in 2014 and they are unlikely to have reached 13,000 in 2015. There were just over 2,000 units completed in Dublin last year.

http://www.davy.ie/private-clients/insights/marketwatch/2016/ireland-in-2016-housing-remains-the-big-challenge.html

The_Conductor

pilly wrote: »

Past experience, intuition and common sense. How many times have they set deadlines for the modular housing and those deadlines were missed by over a year? Most of it not yet complete. And that was supposed to be a rapid solution!!

I can see maybe 18,000 units STARTING next year but that's far from meaning that they are provided. Look around the country, do you see enough land breaking for 18,000 units?

According to the CSO (reported by Finfacts)- there were 4,708 housing units delivered in 2013, just over 8,015 units delivered in 2014, around 10,000 housing units delivered in 2015 and on current trends we are expected to complete just over 14,200 units in 2016. The CIF have recently held international recruitment fairs to try and entice Irish construction workers to come home- and have launched a new recruitment website in the last few weeks.

It is now anticipated that we will deliver 18,000-18,500 units in 2017- ramping up towards 25,000 by 2020- however, this will still be shy of the 30,000 units it is reported we need on an annual basis (ESRI).

This is held up as trouble for the government- as there are already significant wage demands in the pipeline for all categories of construction workers- and it is beginning to spill over into other sectors- and indeed the public sector. Between this- and the fact that we will have an actual unemployment rate of less than 6% (an effective rate of almost 0%- that is anyone who is actively seeking work, is employed)- the economy is set to overheat- and rapidly.

The EU Commission drew attention to all of this in its summary last week- and we are set to be the fastest growing EU economy in 2017- despite Brexit etc.

Its a bit of a double edged sword.

Michael D Not Higgins

pilly wrote: »

Past experience, intuition and common sense. How many times have they set deadlines for the modular housing and those deadlines were missed by over a year? Most of it not yet complete. And that was supposed to be a rapid solution!!

I can see maybe 18,000 units STARTING next year but that's far from meaning that they are provided. Look around the country, do you see enough land breaking for 18,000 units?

The CSO figures show 12,500 for 2015. It's certainly more than that for 2016, and nowhere near a stretch to imagine 18,000 for 2017.

Michael D Not Higgins

beauf wrote: »

Well you have to look whats been built in the last 2yrs in the middle of a crisis.



http://www.davy.ie/private-clients/insights/marketwatch/2016/ireland-in-2016-housing-remains-the-big-challenge.html

Certainly it's well below the needed level but it is trending in the right direction. It could do with a push from the government too.

The_Conductor

No matter what way you look at it- we are not going to build 30,000 units per annum- which the ESRI state is our necessary construction level to meet ongoing demand (never mind pent-up demand).

Construction is growing rapidly- from an incredibly low base.
We don't have the construction workers we once had though- which is why the CIF is actively trying to recruit from abroad again.

Best case scenario (or worst case- depending on your point of view) is that we peak out at approx. 25,000 units (by 2020 apparently- however, I think this is unachievable).

We are predicted by the ESRI and the European Commission- to build over 18,000 units in 2017- and construction activity is once again driving the Irish economy to large extent- and larger by the day.

It is said this is sustainable- because its still below the 30,000 units per annum that the ESRI say we need- whether this is true or not, remains to be seen.

pilly

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The CSO figures show 12,500 for 2015. It's certainly more than that for 2016, and nowhere near a stretch to imagine 18,000 for 2017.

Look I'm open to being convinced but not by figures and reports. I'll believe it when I see it.

rossmores

This effort to address the housing issue which is a problem all over Europe is because of austerity I am a LL i saw this coming in 09 rents driven down for years saw little or no stock or money to refurb and some of those LL who got through have increased rent as is the right as in any business IT IS A BUSINESS it is privately funded has risks and costs it is not a social service
The poor government response from are our elected chosen few does not reflect the positives in the general business of a modern growing economy surely there is another quite motion to increase their pension pot before the recess we won’t notice because of the rent drama
whatever happened to the modular homes
is it the same simon coveney and he could be our new leader wow....

newacc2015

pilly wrote: »

Look I'm open to being convinced but not by figures and reports. I'll believe it when I see it.

There is a ridiculous amount of student housing being built in Dublin City at the moment. At €200 per room per week, it will keep going into the future. AFAIK purpose built student accommodation is seen as licence agreement in the eyes of the law, so rent caps wont apply. So they will keep building them no issue.

REITs are planning on building a large amount of accommodation. The rent caps might have put that on hold though.

Graham

newacc2015 wrote: »

There is a ridiculous amount of student housing being built in Dublin City at the moment. At €200 per room per week, it will keep going into the future. AFAIK purpose built student accommodation is seen as licence agreement in the eyes of the law, so rent caps wont apply. So they will keep building them no issue.

Purpose built student accommodation is a good way to free up other accommodation for residential lettings. In the absence of much build-to-rent activity it must be one of the quickest ways to increase rental supply.

guile4582

is there currently a motion or someone debating the rule about the height restrictions for building in Dublin?

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Fian

This is the relevant provision relating to rent increases, the amendment proposed by the Minister. Worth noting that the limit is clearly 4% per annum, not 4% flat. So if it has been 24 months since previous rent review 8% is the cap. If a subsequent rent review is delayed beyond 12 months the rent can move up for e.g. 14 months worth of a 4% per annum increase.

So it will be possible for landlords to defer rent increases beyond 12 months if they wish to do so.

also worth noting that it applies to rent last set under "a tenancy" not "the tenancy" so the restriction will apply for new tenancies.



all amendments available here:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2016/9216/B92c16-DRNadd.pdf

“Amendment of section 19 (setting of rent above market rent prohibited) of Act of 2004
32. Section 19 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsections after
subsection (2):
“(3) The setting of the rent under the tenancy of a dwelling that is carried
out on or after the relevant date shall be subject to subsections (4) to
(7).
(4) Subject to subsection (5), in setting, at any particular time, the rent
under a tenancy of a dwelling in a rent pressure zone, an amount of
rent shall not be provided for that is greater than the amount
determined by the formula—
R x (1 + 0.04 x t/12)
where—
R is the amount of rent last set under a tenancy for the dwelling,
t is the number of months between—
(a) (i) the date the current rent came into effect under a tenancy for the
dwelling, or
(ii) where paragraph (a) does not apply but the dwelling was
previously let, other than in circumstances to which subsection
(5) applies, the date rent became payable under a tenancy for the
dwelling as last so let,
and
(b) the date the rent for the tenancy of the dwelling will come into
effect after its determination under this subsection.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply—
(a) where a dwelling has not at any time been the subject of a tenancy
[No. 92c of 2016] [15 December, 2016]
during the period of 2 years prior to the date the area is prescribed
under section 24A as a rent pressure zone or deemed to be so
prescribed;
(b) if, in the period since the rent was last set under a tenancy for the
dwelling—
(i) a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation
provided under the tenancy occurs, and
(ii) the rent under the tenancy, were it to be set immediately after
that change, would, by virtue of that change, be different to
what was the market rent for the tenancy at the time the rent was
last set under a tenancy for the dwelling.
(6) Where immediately before the relevant date a notice under section
22(2)—
(a) has been served on the tenant, or
(b) the rent review concerned has commenced,
then subsections (3) and (4) shall not apply to the new rent, referred to
in section 22(2), stated in that notice in accordance with that section.
(7) In this section—
‘relevant date’ means the date section 32* of the Planning and
Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016 comes
into operation;
‘rent pressure zone’ means an area—
(a) prescribed by the Minister by order under section 24A as a rent
pressure zone under that section, or
(b) in respect of an area to which section 24B relates, deemed to be so
prescribed by the Minister under section 24A.”.”.
—An tAire Tithíochta, Pleanála, Pobail agus Rialtais Áitiúil.

Edit: finally - worth noting that it captures any tenancy within a Rent pressure zone which had a tenancy set in the 24 months before designation or subsequent to that.

Giblet

So basically anyone coming out of a 2 year review period will get an 8% rise if this passes, and 4% per year after that.

pilly

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a good point, maybe there are a lot of units that are almost there.

pilly

Fian wrote: »

This is the relevant provision relating to rent increases, the amendment proposed by the Minister. Worth noting that the limit is clearly 4% per annum, not 4% flat. So if it has been 24 months since previous rent review 8% is the cap. If a subsequent rent review is delayed beyond 12 months the rent can move up for e.g. 14 months worth of a 4% per annum increase.

So it will be possible for landlords to defer rent increases beyond 12 months if they wish to do so.

also worth noting that it applies to rent last set under "a tenancy" not "the tenancy" so the restriction will apply for new tenancies.



all amendments available here:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2016/9216/B92c16-DRNadd.pdf


Edit: finally - worth noting that it captures any tenancy within a Rent pressure zone which had a tenancy set in the 24 months before designation or subsequent to that.

Have they agreed on it yet, has anyone heard? I've no radio in work.

Graham

pilly wrote: »

Have they agreed on it yet, has anyone heard? I've no radio in work.

Looks like they may have.

Additional RPZs by the end of Feb if they meet the criteria.

Kapips88

I wonder how this could be challenged.
It does not apply to everyone equally.
And what they have done is punished landlords who have been nice to their tenants.
What they should have done is let everyone start at market rate.
Whats the story with 4 year part 4?
Gone I suppose, without giving a LL change to finish his existing part 4.
Who would invest in property now?

beauf

They have basically punished every LL who hasn't increased their rent to the market rate. All will now have to increase to the market rate. Who knows how next they will change it. Imagine you were buying a property with sitting tenants. Do you buy one at the market rate, or one that isn't. Also one that's in the Zone. or one that isn't. This has wider repercussions. For selling up, and renewing existing tenants. They have basically fired a gun behind the racehorse.

What a utter mess.

murphaph

Kapips88 wrote: »

I wonder how this could be challenged.
It does not apply to everyone equally.
And what they have done is punished landlords who have been nice to their tenants.
What they should have done is let everyone start at market rate.
Whats the story with 4 year part 4?
Gone I suppose, without giving a LL change to finish his existing part 4.
Who would invest in property now?

This is grossly unfair on landlords that have been taking it easy on the rent increases.

Nickindublin

I have a question as I am a landlord in Dublin I have not put up the rent since my tenant moved in over 3 years ago. I now intend to hit him with a major hike to bring up the rent to near market rates. My question is do I have to inform the PTRB of the new rent? Do I need to get the tenant to sign a new contract as we have not done since initial lease. Tenancy was registered with PTRB

axcel

I love this obsession with the market rate as if somehow people are making a loss by not charging this random rate. This rate has been set my landlords, and the supposed market rates that currently existing for some properties is actually obscene. But everytime there's an increase to a higher ridiculous rate, tenants find the money from somewhere or there's some desperate people/great earners who make the conscious decision to pay this rate. So somehow we get a new market rate and so on and so forth.

If you've been happy with the increase to date, you say you want to be this fair landlord and somehow now are panicking saying oh legislation is going to make me give this huge increase, why is legislation making you do that?? Because you'd already planned making increases bigger than 4% in the future? Mmm doesn't sound too fair to me.

What costs do you forsee coming in that will be higher than 4% each year? Because CPI isn't increasing by that much, wages aren't increasing by that much. If we go back to the oh existing costs are too high, well you could've increase in 2015 because nothings changed since then. Except what has changed is spiraling rents so lets be honest people just want to jump on the garvy train.

Gumbo

Lizcent wrote: »

I love this obsession with the market rate as if somehow people are making a loss by not charging this random rate. This rate has been set my landlords, and the supposed market rates that currently existing for some properties is actually obscene. But everytime there's an increase to a higher ridiculous rate, tenants find the money from somewhere or there's some desperate people/great earners who make the conscious decision to pay this rate. So somehow we get a new market rate and so on and so forth.

If you've been happy with the increase to date, you say you want to be this fair landlord and somehow now are panicking saying oh legislation is going to make me give this huge increase, why is legislation making you do that?? Because you'd already planned making increases bigger than 4% in the future? Mmm doesn't sound too fair to me.

What costs do you forsee coming in that will be higher than 4% each year? Because CPI isn't increasing by that much, wages aren't increasing by that much. If we go back to the oh existing costs are too high, well you could've increase in 2015 because nothings changed since then. Except what has changed is spiraling rents so lets be honest people just want to jump on the garvy train.

Tax burden on LL's

Graham

Lizcent wrote: »

I love this obsession with the market rate as if somehow people are making a loss by not charging this random rate. This rate has been set my landlords, and the supposed market rates that currently existing for some properties is actually obscene. But everytime there's an increase to a higher ridiculous rate, tenants find the money from somewhere or there's some desperate people/great earners who make the conscious decision to pay this rate. So somehow we get a new market rate and so on and so forth.

If you've been happy with the increase to date, you say you want to be this fair landlord and somehow now are panicking saying oh legislation is going to make me give this huge increase, why is legislation making you do that?? Because you'd already planned making increases bigger than 4% in the future? Mmm doesn't sound too fair to me.

What costs do you forsee coming in that will be higher than 4% each year? Because CPI isn't increasing by that much, wages aren't increasing by that much. If we go back to the oh existing costs are too high, well you could've increase in 2015 because nothings changed since then. Except what has changed is spiraling rents so lets be honest people just want to jump on the garvy train.

How does any of that work for the many landlords where the rent doesn't currently cover the costs?

foggy_lad

Giblet wrote: »

So basically anyone coming out of a 2 year review period will get an 8% rise if this passes, and 4% per year after that.

But don't the RPZs only last for three years? so after three years with a 12% raise in rent the landlords are back to normal.

axcel

kceire wrote: »

Tax burden on LL's

Tax burden actually slightly reduced from 2014 to 2015.

Covering costs, why didn't you increase previously? If you were happy to cover costs then, why suddenly not now? Also you have to take into account the capital asset you have currently appreciating. So you don't get a house for completely free? You still are getting the majority of the mortgage on a house you own paid.

Graham

Lizcent wrote: »

Covering costs, why didn't you increase previously? If you were happy to cover costs then, why suddenly not now?

It's entirely possible the market rate at the time was still insufficient to cover the costs.

mattser

Nickindublin wrote: »

I have a question as I am a landlord in Dublin I have not put up the rent since my tenant moved in over 3 years ago. I now intend to hit him with a major hike to bring up the rent to near market rates. My question is do I have to inform the PTRB of the new rent? Do I need to get the tenant to sign a new contract as we have not done since initial lease. Tenancy was registered with PTRB

I'd love to know the answer to this too. Is there anywhere to find out the practical effect on Tenant and Landlord ?

axcel

Graham wrote: »

It's entirely possible the market rate at the time was still insufficient to cover the costs.

True, and there are these people out there. However the market rates in 2015 were not unreasonable for landlords. We can't keep increasing rates until every Landlord out there covers costs or is in profit. The reality is some people lose out on investments, and if your property is in negative equity that's a sh*te situation, I do feel for people like that but there has to be personal responsibility for the investment you made.