Landlords, what have you decided to do about the new amendments?

newacc2015

myshirt wrote: »

Why all this talk about trying to 'game the system' and circumnavigate the spirit, ethos, and intention of the law?

Why?

How come I didn't hear landlords shouting loud for a more equitable system when all was in their favour?

Why game the system? Ethics anyone?

The intention of the law is to appease angry voters who feel the Government has done nothing to resolve the rental crisis, as the Government has done nothing to solve the rental crisis. Instead of actually solving the crisis by building housing. The Government has decided to ignore something nearly all economists agree on(which never happens) and has been proven for the last 60 years to be a complete failure and introduce rent controls.

Why would a rational landlord accept the law when is proven to be a complete and utter failure?

When has the system been in the landlords failure? Maybe in the 1840s, but it certainly hasnt been for the last 2 decades.

How can a landlord be ethical when every 2 years the Government completely changes the legalisation? The first priority of a landlord is paying their mortgage and their taxes. The collector general and your bank who will repo your property on two missed repayments dont care about ethics.

robp

noodler wrote: »

60% increases in rent nationally (higher in some urban areas) hasn't helped supply in the last 2 years so it is understandable that society and now the Government are unwilling to buy the argument that 4% increases off an already disgraceful base will reduce supply.

There is overwhelming academic evidence that rent controls reduce supply and quality of stock. There are not many issues the left and right agree on but this is one. The idea that somehow FG have this in control, and Ireland can be different is beyond absurd.

Lumen

robp wrote: »

There is overwhelming academic evidence that rent controls reduce supply and quality of stock.

Yes, but the govt and CBI are at the same time introducing measures to boost "demand" in the sense of freeing up credit for FTBers and providing tax relief for deposits on new builds. Rental and owner occupied stock are to some degree fungible.

I'm also not convinced that these controls, being temporary in nature and (AFAIK) not applying to new stock, will make very much difference. If I was getting into a 20 year leveraged investment, my prime concern would be the long term outlook for yields, and the biggest risk would be having to liquidate in the midst of another crash due to a supply overshoot coupled with spike in interest rates. A ceiling on rent increases wouldn't be a big disincentive.

newacc2015

Lumen wrote: »

I'm also not convinced that these controls, being temporary in nature and (AFAIK) not applying to new stock, will make very much difference. If I was getting into a 20 year leveraged investment, my prime concern would be the long term outlook for yields, and the biggest risk would be having to liquidate in the midst of another crash due to a supply overshoot coupled with spike in interest rates. A ceiling on rent increases wouldn't be a big disincentive.

Lets get real. They aren't going to be temporary. What Government is going to make the unpopular decision to remove them?

How are you supposed to look at the long term outlook in a leveraged investment when in the last 10 years, the Government cut your mortgage interest relief, introduced a ton of taxes and told you rents are capped? How are you supposed to look at a 20 year outlook when the rules completely change every 2 years?

How is a rents not a massive disincentive when any other investment like stocks have no caps on their returns?

IMO no rational investor will invest in property as you cant tell what the Government will do to your investment

Lumen

newacc2015 wrote: »

Lets get real. They aren't going to be temporary. What Government is going to make the unpopular decision to remove them?

Landlords are a powerful constituency. Maybe it doesn't feel that way to you.

newacc2015 wrote: »

How are you supposed to look at the long term outlook in a leveraged investment when in the last 10 years, the Government cut your mortgage interest relief, introduced a ton of taxes and told you rents are capped?

Mortgage interest relief is at 80% and rising. But you only note the cuts.

"A ton of taxes"? Which of these apply only to landlords?

Rents are not capped, the increases are capped.

Your glass is half empty.

robp

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, but the govt and CBI are at the same time introducing measures to boost "demand" in the sense of freeing up credit for FTBers and providing tax relief for deposits on new builds. Rental and owner occupied stock are to some degree fungible.

I'm also not convinced that these controls, being temporary in nature and (AFAIK) not applying to new stock, will make very much difference. If I was getting into a 20 year leveraged investment, my prime concern would be the long term outlook for yields, and the biggest risk would be having to liquidate in the midst of another crash due to a supply overshoot coupled with spike in interest rates. A ceiling on rent increases wouldn't be a big disincentive.

Even if these measures don't have a huge negative effect they will at least have a minor negative effect which is awful in a time of a rental crisis. I know people who charge significantly below market rates. Already I have heard them drop plans to buy new furniture for their in response to the fact that they cant even creep towards market rates b new legislation.

Paul Krugman said in 2000.

Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html
People often try cite Germany as a rent controls success story, but most parts of Germany use a very lite version of rent controls as they refer to an index not previous rent. Where housing is cheap there has decades of economic stagnation due to communist while in the west rents are high and comparable to Ireland.

newacc2015

Lumen wrote: »

Landlords are a powerful constituency. Maybe it doesn't feel that way to you.

I don't think it feels that way for the hundreds of thousands of landlords in this country who can't evict non paying tenants, have to deal with the Government changing regs every 2 years etc. Landlords might be a powerful constituent, but the Government's views tenants as of greater importance. Such as structuring all tenancy reforms for the last 13/14 years all in favour of the tenant.

Lumen wrote: »

Mortgage interest relief is at 80% and rising. But you only note the cuts.

As an investor looking at the long term, I would see that there is no certainty in mortgage interest relief. When the Government was strapped for cash, they capped it. How could I be certain that in the next recession or even in 12 months that the Governments wouldn't cut it to 40%. They have shown in the past nothing is off limits.

Lumen wrote: »

Rents are not capped, the increases are capped.

We dont know. There is talk that the new amendment means that if a tenant moves out, the new tenant moves in on the same rent

Lumen wrote: »

Your glass is half empty.

The glass is empty for the thousands of landlords who are selling up each year. Sherry Fitz state that about 45% of the properties they are selling are BTL and only 20% of purchases are BTL. With stats like that, I dont see how anyone can see the glass as anything but half empty.

You haven't quite explained how a long term investor investing for 20 years should feel reassured about the fact the Government changes taxation and other rules nearly every 2 years. Would you invest €75,000 and leverage another €225,000 in something where you can't even tell what the Government policy will be in 6 months? There is no other industry where the Government caps their interest relief. There is no other industry where the Government constantly changes their taxation rules and regulations every 2 years. Yet you seem to think I am only one pessimistic about the industry?

The reality is a lot of landlords are going to sell up with these amendments. Between caps on rents and ad hoc tax policy. Most people can go onto Degiro or any online stock broker,where they can invest in a tax efficient Irish REIT or an index fund where they can 10% pa over the long term with no fears of the Government massively changing the taxation every 2 years.

Pkiernan

Its very easy now to get regular, repeatable 7% returns in the Stock Markets, which will only attract 33% CGT.

Not sure why I am tying up a €200K asset to get a 2.5% return....

Government has moved against landlords and property rights, because they wont increase supply (the only real solution).

This will have the effect of driving the small investor out (who is paying 51% tax on rental income) and rewarding international REIT funds who pay virtually nothing in tax.
Rents are not going down because of this. The left wing idiots will understand this in a few years.

Carawaystick

Pkiernan wrote: »

Crazy that it doesn't occur to the government to maybe incentivise rent reductions through corresponding landlord income tax reduction.

I'm not sure why If I go out and do an honest weeks hard work I should pay a higher rate of income tax than a fella who bought a house and has to decide on tenants every other year, buy insurance and fill in a form or 3 each year....

Carawaystick

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm not sure why If I go out and do an honest weeks hard work I should pay a higher rate of income tax than a fella who bought a house and has to decide on tenants every other year, buy insurance and fill in a form or 3 each year....

Becuse he is taking a risk and providing a vital service.

rossmores

So now my two vacant units which where let previously at a large market discounts to good tenants can only be re-let at the same rent with the higher risk because of changes to tenant rights and tenure will have remain vacant or do short term letting, however if there is a new owner the rent restrictions wont apply so I have just been mugged by the government.
This will take a lot of existing stock out of the market at a faster rate

Clampdown

Mmmm yes, quite right you are, I too am making up all kinds of fees. Charges apply should a tenant text, make eye contact, or pay rent without a deep bow or curtsy. That will teach them to seek reform through their elected government!

handlemaster

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm not sure why If I go out and do an honest weeks hard work I should pay a higher rate of income tax than a fella who bought a house and has to decide on tenants every other year, buy insurance and fill in a form or 3 each year....

Landlords did that to, where do you think they get the money to pay for the deposits for a property to get a mortgage. Implying that someone who invest s there savings in an investment property as not having worked for it is misleading and dishonest.

76544567

handlemaster wrote: »

Landlords did that to, where do you think they get the money to pay for the deposits for a property to get a mortgage. Implying that someone who invest s there savings in an investment property as not having worked for it is misleading and dishonest.

Tenants and indeed our government, seem to think that there is no work involved in property investment.
They all seem to think that a property investor should buy and put the work in but that they should not get the benefit of their investment and work.

murphaph

Clampdown wrote: »

Mmmm yes, quite right you are, I too am making up all kinds of fees. Charges apply should a tenant text, make eye contact, or pay rent without a deep bow or curtsy. That will teach them to seek reform through their elected government!

Reform is fine. All the reform for the last 20 years has been in favour of tenants. Nothing meaningful there to help landlords at all.

A 4% cap (which is all that's making headlines) for sitting tenants would have been fine with me. That they overnight forced landlords who have been generous to their existing to be generous to all future tenants is what sticks in my craw.

rossmores

I would think twice before investing in reits who are exposed to residential property even though they have a subsidised tax advantage over private LL.
Anyone who thinks property owners should be cannon fodder to those who rent by knee jerk reaction of a irresponsible piece of legislation wont effect them in the long run enjoy the ride while you can
I will not invest anymore in this market or upgrade any of my remaining investments and will remain vacant as tenants vacate.

76544567

Over the last few days we have decided what we are going to do now.
We will be selling the rented 3 bed house in Dublin and buying an apartment in Spain. Notice will be served next week.

We will Airbnb or similar that new property in Spain via an agent in Spain during the summer and high season months and use it for ourselves and family at other times. We will use it for swap times too so that we can get free holidays throughout Europe from it too.

We will sell an apartment and invest in ETFs. No Reits, for reason someone else outlined above.

And the other apartment we will keep rented for another couple of months to see if the IPOA challenge this and where it is going. If nothing changes, then that will be Airbnbd for enough of the year to pay for its running. Once costs and a little profit are made it will remain empty for the rest of the year. Under no circumstances, unless changes happen with this new legislation will it be used for long term lets again.

Paulw

murphaph wrote: »

A 4% cap (which is all that's making headlines) for sitting tenants would have been fine with me. That they overnight forced landlords who have been generous to their existing to be generous to all future tenants is what sticks in my craw.

I can't see that last bit anywhere in the published wording. All I can see is that the new rent can't be greater than 4% of the rate index. So, to me, if you were renting below market rate, you can still increase the rate to market rate plus a maximum of 4%.

If someone has wording that says otherwise, I'd be curious.

So, those generous landlords are not stuck.

76544567

Paulw wrote: »

I can't see that last bit anywhere in the published wording. All I can see is that the new rent can't be greater than 4% of the rate index. So, to me, if you were renting below market rate, you can still increase the rate to market rate plus a maximum of 4%.

If someone has wording that says otherwise, I'd be curious.

So, those generous landlords are not stuck.

If that was the case then LLs would be happy.
Especially the ones charging below market rate (which by definition does not exist anymore with the new rules).

Now your rent will be made up of rent + tenant paid charges. And because there is no market rate, these could add up to anything.

Everyone's a loser on this one. Even Coveny, when people realise what he has done.

Graham

Paulw wrote: »

......you can still increase the rate to market rate plus a maximum of 4%.

Nope, 4% of the 'rent last set'.

I'd be interested in seeing anything to the contrary,

Paulw wrote: »

So, those generous landlords are not stuck.

Looks like they are

Formula and Examples
Where a landlord is setting the rent in a Rent Pressure Zone the amount can not be greater than the amount determined by the below formula:
R x (1 + 0.04 x t/m)

• R = The amount of rent last set under a tenancy for the dwelling (the current rent amount)
• t = The number of months between the date the current rent came in to effect and the date the new rent amount will come in to effect.
• m = the number of months since your last rent review – you must enter 24 OR 12
• For tenancies that are already in existence a review is only permitted 24 months after the tenancy came in to existence or 24 months from the date the rent was last set.
• Once this first rent review has taken place, all reviews thereafter are permitted every 12 months. For subsequent rent reviews in relation to the property the permissible rent increase will be 4% per annum applied pro rata for the period since the rent was last increased.

Source: RTB

Paulw

I guess I misread one of the exceptions to what the previous rent was, in relation to the market rate.

Clampdown

murphaph wrote: »

Clampdown wrote: »

Mmmm yes, quite right you are, I too am making up all kinds of fees. Charges apply should a tenant text, make eye contact, or pay rent without a deep bow or curtsy. That will teach them to seek reform through their elected government!

Reform is fine. All the reform for the last 20 years has been in favour of tenants. Nothing meaningful there to help landlords at all.

A 4% cap (which is all that's making headlines) for sitting tenants would have been fine with me. That they overnight forced landlords who have been generous to their existing to be generous to all future tenants is what sticks in my craw.

Yeah, all those generous landords... If such a mythical creature exists, they got screwed by the tactics of the greedy ones, NOT tenants. That's who the government reacted to.

Now all the generous landords are on here threatening to leave the market (no one believes you!) or hit tenants with more moneygrab fees simply out of spite for the government making a botched attempt at control.

We actually need a hard cap on rents for certain types of properties in certain areas and a proper 3rd party escrow security deposit system, no point in half measures in a few rent pressure zones.

murphaph

Clampdown wrote: »

Yeah, all those generous landords... If such a mythical creature exists, they got screwed by the tactics of the greedy ones, NOT tenants. That's who the government reacted to.

Now all the generous landords are on here threatening to leave the market (no one believes you!) or hit tenants with more moneygrab fees simply out of spite for the government making a botched attempt at control.

We actually need a hard cap on rents for certain types of properties in certain areas and a proper 3rd party escrow security deposit system, no point in half measures in a few rent pressure zones.

A hard cap is mad cap. Let's say you set the cap in D6 at 2k for a 3 bed. Overnight you price potential investors out against owner occupiers as the return becomes so abysmal. As existing landlords sell, the properties will always be bought by owner occupiers and eventually there will be no rental properties available in that area.

The landlords doing current good tenants a good turn have been screwed by the state. These landlords exist but nobody ever comes on a forum to tell you about them. Why would they?

Good luck anyway. I'm sure rent control will work better in Dublin than Stockholm and Berlin.

handlemaster

Clampdown wrote: »

Yeah, all those generous landords... If such a mythical creature exists, they got screwed by the tactics of the greedy ones, NOT tenants. That's who the government reacted to.

Now all the generous landords are on here threatening to leave the market (no one believes you!) or hit tenants with more moneygrab fees simply out of spite for the government making a botched attempt at control.

We actually need a hard cap on rents for certain types of properties in certain areas and a proper 3rd party escrow security deposit system, no point in half measures in a few rent pressure zones.

And for problem tenants your balanced proposal would be what ?

newacc2015

Clampdown wrote: »

Yeah, all those generous landords... If such a mythical creature exists, they got screwed by the tactics of the greedy ones, NOT tenants. That's who the government reacted to.

Now all the generous landords are on here threatening to leave the market (no one believes you!) or hit tenants with more moneygrab fees simply out of spite for the government making a botched attempt at control.

There is an amazing book out this year from the American sociologist Matthew Desmond called 'Evicted: Profit and Poverty in the American City'. He is actually a lecturer from Harvard University. He looks at the commercialisation of the rental industry in Milwaukee, US and the effects on tenants. The more commerical and concentrated the rental industry becomes ie most properties being owned by large landlords and companies, the more inhumane and profit driven it becomes. The further the property owner is from the tenant, the less fair they are to the tenant.

If look at the Irish property industry from the perspective of this book. Regardless of how generous or unfair you think mom-and-pop Landlords are ie a person with a single property, which I think you are incredibly unfair on. Wait until most tenants in Ireland are a tenant of a German insurance company or a Texan REIT. You are just another tenant on their system. They don't care if your mother has cancer or your wife attempted suicide. They just want to maximise their rent. If you cant make the rent, prepare to be evicted

When Irish tenants are just dealing with faceless funds as a landlord, they will realise how good their mom-and-pop landlord was. How they were reasonable on rent increases, made reduction during a recession etc. By then it will be too late

One thing I took away from the book was during the recession in the US. Landlord didnt reduce their rents. They would rather let their properties stay empty, then reduce rents as that would cause their other tenants to demand rent reductions. Lets see how well Irish tenants do in the next recession when there maybe no rent reductions on the table(versus the 50-60% rent cuts during the last recession)

Clampdown wrote: »

We actually need a hard cap on rents for certain types of properties in certain areas and a proper 3rd party escrow security deposit system, no point in half measures in a few rent pressure zones.

No we dont need hard caps. We need the state to build vast amounts of housing. Anything other than this is a cop out. It is easily to blame the greedy landlords for the housing crisis than the incompetent Government

FYI 99.7% of tenancies end without a deposit dispute. Out of those 0.3%, only 40% of those deposits were entirely unfairly withheld. So 99.85% of tenancies end with no deposit dispute. So why spend tens of millions on a deposit system that isn't needed?

Lumen

newacc2015 wrote: »

There is an amazing book out this year from the American sociologist Matthew Desmond called 'Evicted: Profit and Poverty in the American City'. He is actually a lecturer from Harvard University. He looks at the commercialisation of the rental industry in Milwaukee, US and the effects on tenants. The more commerical and concentrated the rental industry becomes ie most properties being owned by large landlords and companies, the more inhumane and profit driven it becomes. The further the property owner is from the tenant, the less fair they are to the tenant

I've not read the book but your post piqued my interest so I read a few Amazon reviews (here).

It seems that Desmond is focusing on one particular slum landlord ("Sherrena") who seems more like the archetypal "Jimmy Connors" character from the Irish Landlord forum than a faceless REIT - she only owns a couple of million dollars of property and it's all rented to extremely poor tenants. Would these people even be in the private rental market in Ireland now that the pre-63s are no more?

You argue that commercial landlords are faster to evict, but a quick scan of this forum suggests the no. 1 complaint that Irish landlords have is that they can't evict fast enough. So it's not the goodwill of the landlords that's holding back evictions here, it's bureaucracy and pro-tenant regulation.

murphaph

Lumen wrote: »

You argue that commercial landlords are faster to evict, but a quick scan of this forum suggests the no. 1 complaint that Irish landlords have is that they can't evict fast enough. So it's not the goodwill of the landlords that's holding back evictions here, it's bureaucracy and pro-tenant regulation.

The one does not follow on from the other. A mom and pop landlord may be more lenient on a tenant in hard times by for example reducing the rent, while a REIT will not, for fear of mass calls for rent reductions. The same mom and pop will need to more quickly evict an overholding tenant who has ceased paying all rent. The REIT can more easily sit out the overholder because it can price this overholding into its other tenancies as insurance and because it controls enough of the market to enable it to do so.

By protecting those that should be evicted speedily, the good tenants pay more. It's the same reason mortgage interest rates are higher in Ireland than the rest of the Eurozone.

athtrasna

Mod note

Can we get back on topic please. This isn't a book club thread

sunnysoutheast

Graham wrote: »

Nope, 4% of the 'rent last set'.

I'd be interested in seeing anything to the contrary,



Looks like they are


Source: RTB

This restriction is only for properties in current RPZs though, right? Not areas "under review" or whatever they call it.

76544567

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

This restriction is only for properties in current RPZs though, right? Not areas "under review" or whatever they call it.

As we have seen, the stroke of a pen means that anywhere can be designated a rent pressure zone, so if you are not charging full market rate, <mod snip: this is not the place for political rants> nothing you can do about it.
There is no time to react.

Bif

If you are renting a property outside the designated zones what changes have been made, if any? Thanks.

76544567

Bif wrote: »

If you are renting a property outside the designated zones what changes have been made, if any? Thanks.

No changes yet.
But a very disturbing precedent has been set now.
Dont maximise your rent at your own risk.

sunnysoutheast

76544567 wrote: »

No changes yet.
But a very disturbing precedent has been set now.
Dont maximise your rent at your own risk.

Thanks, yes that was why I was asking the question on behalf of a family member.

Their existing tenants are moving out very soon (having bought) and have been paying below market rent for a while now. The next tenants won't be.

murphaph

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Thanks, yes that was why I was asking the question on behalf of a family member.

Their existing tenants are moving out very soon (having bought) and have been paying below market rent for a while now. The next tenants won't be.

Don't wait for the new tenants. The government could easily designate you in an RPZ overnight and you'd then be obliged to offer the current favourable rate to your as yet unknown new tenants! Assuming you haven't reviewed the rent in the last 2 years do it immediately.

76544567

murphaph wrote: »

Don't wait for the new tenants. The government could easily designate you in an RPZ overnight and you'd then be obliged to offer the current favourable rate to your as yet unknown new tenants! Assuming you haven't reviewed the rent in the last 2 years do it immediately.

Thats exactly what happened a couple of weeks ago. New places were designated overnight.

Bif

Has the 4 year tenancy rule changed to 6 year for areas outside the newly designated areas?

76544567

Bif wrote: »

Has the 4 year tenancy rule changed to 6 year for areas outside the newly designated areas?

Possibly not, but it could in the morning. And thats the problem now.

Baby01032012

Bif wrote: »

Has the 4 year tenancy rule changed to 6 year for areas outside the newly designated areas?

The 4 year to 6 year rule change inside the RPZ is only effective for new tenancies.

GGTrek

Bif wrote: »

Has the 4 year tenancy rule changed to 6 year for areas outside the newly designated areas?

It has been changed for the whole of Ireland but only for new Tenancies. In any case 4 or 6 years means nothing now. With repeal of section 42, part 4 tenancies have become INDEFINITE for all practical purposes! I posted in the legal forum the full legal argument and so far no one has been able to refute it. I am still hoping that someone can refute it. People are focusing only on rental caps, but the other changes were as big as the rental caps or in my opinion much worse.

Graham

GGTrek wrote: »

It has been changed for the whole of Ireland but only for new Tenancies. In any case 4 or 6 years means nothing now. With repeal of section 42, part 4 tenancies have become INDEFINITE for all practical purposes! I posted in the legal forum the full legal argument and so far no one has been able to refute it. I am still hoping that someone can refute it. People are focusing only on rental caps, but the other changes were as big as the rental caps or in my opinion much worse.

My understanding is a landlord can terminate a part 4 tenancy at the end of the 4/6 years subject to notice etc etc etc. The change is the removal of the 6 months security-limbo for the tenant at the start of a further part 4.

i.e. the decision has to be made approaching the end of the part 4 tenancy rather than anytime in the first 6 months of the further part 4 tenancy,

size5

GGTrek wrote: »

It has been changed for the whole of Ireland but only for new Tenancies. In any case 4 or 6 years means nothing now. With repeal of section 42, part 4 tenancies have become INDEFINITE for all practical purposes! I posted in the legal forum the full legal argument and so far no one has been able to refute it. I am still hoping that someone can refute it. People are focusing only on rental caps, but the other changes were as big as the rental caps or in my opinion much worse.

To me this is my greatest concern. My current tenants moving in June 2011(they have been exceptional), they pay slightly below market rate.

Can I still serve notice if I am going to sell the property(once I give them the required notice period)? Or do I now have to wait till it reached 8 years before I can do this?

GGTrek

Graham wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

It has been changed for the whole of Ireland but only for new Tenancies. In any case 4 or 6 years means nothing now. With repeal of section 42, part 4 tenancies have become INDEFINITE for all practical purposes! I posted in the legal forum the full legal argument and so far no one has been able to refute it. I am still hoping that someone can refute it. People are focusing only on rental caps, but the other changes were as big as the rental caps or in my opinion much worse.

My understanding is a landlord can terminate a part 4 tenancy at the end of the 4/6 years subject to notice etc etc etc. The change is the removal of the 6 months security-limbo for the tenant at the start of a further part 4.

i.e. the decision has to be made approaching the end of the part 4 tenancy rather than anytime in the first 6 months of the further part 4 tenancy,

Unfortunately your understanding has no legal basis. I have shown with case law and statute in the legal forum that to terminate a part 4 tenancy with a notice issued before the 4 years date and expiring on or after the 4 years date (a section 34b termination) you need to provide reason. This has been confirmed to me by two solicitors and by RTB adjudicator. The only question left is which reasons are acceptable. I am hoping to get more info from the two solicitors next week, since at the moment they are all out of office.

GGTrek

size5 wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

It has been changed for the whole of Ireland but only for new Tenancies. In any case 4 or 6 years means nothing now. With repeal of section 42, part 4 tenancies have become INDEFINITE for all practical purposes! I posted in the legal forum the full legal argument and so far no one has been able to refute it. I am still hoping that someone can refute it. People are focusing only on rental caps, but the other changes were as big as the rental caps or in my opinion much worse.

To me this is my greatest concern. My current tenants moving in June 2011(they have been exceptional), they pay slightly below market rate.

Can I still serve notice if I am going to sell the property(once I give them the required notice period)? Or do I now have to wait till it reached 8 years before I can do this?

You can still serve a section 34 termination notice for sale of property if you are not selling more than 10 dwellings in a period of 6 months. You can find sample notices and statements required by law here: http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/landlord-intends-to-sell-the-dwelling.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Graham

GGTrek wrote: »

Unfortunately your understanding has no legal basis. I have shown with case law and statute in the legal forum that to terminate a part 4 tenancy........

Here's the basis of my opinion:

Deputy Simon Coveney: The amendments in group 6 are on security of tenure. Government Amendments Nos. 69 and 87 increase Part 4 tenancies from four years to six. We had a good discussion on this matter in the Seanad. Many Senators would like no time limit on tenancies and for there to be tenancies of indefinite duration. What we say in our rental strategy is that we would like this to be the case at some point in the future. We got a great deal of feedback on this and my judgment was that if we jumped straight from four years to indefinite tenancies, it might spook certain landlords who might pull their properties from the market. We do not want that because the consequence would be to reduce supply in the short term. We are taking a step-by-step approach. We are going from four years to six years. We have effectively done away with the mechanism whereby there would be a second six-month probationary period after the six years. We are saying that Part 4 tenancies are now going to be for a six-year period. After those six years, decisions need to be made by the landlord and tenant and so on as to whether they want to go into another six-year period.

Source: transcript of Simon Coveney presenting the last amendments to the Seanad 21st December.

76544567

GGTrek wrote: »

You can still serve a section 34 termination notice for sale of property if you are not selling more than 10 dwellings in a period of 6 months. You can find sample notices and statements required by law here: http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/landlord-intends-to-sell-the-dwelling.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Only for the time being though. But as we now see, Coveny might wake up in the morning and decide that from tomorrow you can never ask a tenant to leave your property, even if you want to sell it.
This is the reason I am selling all but one of my properties now. And will sell the remaining g one should this new legislation not be successfully challenged very soon.

Lumen

76544567 wrote: »

Only for the time being though. But as we now see, Coveny might wake up in the morning and decide that from tomorrow you can never ask a tenant to leave your property, even if you want to sell it.

I don't understand why this (and long tenancies) is so contentious, in isolation.

Sitting tenants are currently an issue with buyers and banks when selling a property, but only because they indicate a problem tenant. If sitting tenants were the default this wouldn't be the case.

AFAIK commercial property typically attracts higher prices with tenants on long leases as it gives a known and stable yield.

76544567

Lumen wrote: »

I don't understand why this (and long tenancies) is so contentious, in isolation.

Sitting tenants are currently an issue with buyers and banks when selling a property, but only because they indicate a problem tenant. If sitting tenants were the default this wouldn't be the case.

AFAIK commercial property typically attracts higher prices with tenants on long leases as it gives a known and stable yield.

Commercial letting is a whole different beast to residential letting.
The two should not be compared, for obvious reasons. Most notable among them being what happens when something goes wrong, and how easily the rules are changed with a brain fart from a minister.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Sitting tenants are currently an issue with buyers and banks when selling a property, but only because they indicate a problem tenant. If sitting tenants were the default this wouldn't be the case.

AFAIK commercial property typically attracts higher prices with tenants on long leases as it gives a known and stable yield.

Very true.
The problem here is that the courts are dysfunctional when it come to dealing with problem tenants and regaining posession - long delays and huge expenses and no comeback against the tenant who is thumbing their nose at everybody.

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

Very true.
The problem here is that the courts are dysfunctional when it come to dealing with problem tenants and regaining possession - long delays and huge expenses and no comeback against the tenant who is thumbing their nose at everybody.

Right, but that's an issue of enforcement of rules not the rules themselves.

Compensating landlords by depriving tenants of security of tenancy was the wrong solution.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Right, but that's an issue of enforcement of rules not the rules themselves.

Compensating landlords by depriving tenants of security of tenancy was the wrong solution.

I agree that its the wrong solution but its the only one that is, in practice, available.

If the courts worked, as we have a right to expect them to, then that would be the correct solution. It would have other benefits too, for example landlords wouldnt have to be so picky selecting tenants.