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

Gumbo

76544567 wrote: »

It would depend if it was even rented before it was bought.
If not then you can charge whatever you can get.

sublime1 wrote: »

If it hasn't been rented in the past 2 years, you can charge what you want. Otherwise, you need to use the formulae from this page http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/rent-pressure-zones

Cheers, no it was never rented. We bought it brand new in 2006 and will be renting it out this summer when we move into another property that is actually rented out now.....please god all going well.

Thanks.

Michael D Not Higgins

mdebets wrote: »

But wouldn't that still be the same? If the last rent review was 24 month ago, so wouldn't be the last rent raise be 24 months ago as well and the same for 12 month, so leading in both case to the result of 1?

Yes, but if you had a review 36 months ago, then the value for m is 24 not 36, while the value for t is 36. This gives a ratio of 1.5 or an increase of 6%.

After the first review the value for m is 12. So if the review is at 13 months after the last the new rent will come in 13 months after the last and the ratio will be 13/12, or an increase of 4.3%.

This system encourages the landlord to increase at the earliest opportunity, and I think the government want it that way. If you know your landlord is going to increase the rent in March and the increase is going to be 4%, you can plan for that.

Lux23

kceire wrote: »

Holding on. It's been good so far so I prey it remains stable.
Haven't increased the rent since they moved in, in may 2015 but they have been good and I haven't had any major outlays.

Well you couldn't legally increase it.

sublime1

Looks like a lot of landords are taking the holding position of offering their properties for short leases (less than 6months) to see how this plays out. Was just looking on Daft and have seen a few like this one http://www.daft.ie/21706209 "Short term lease only. Possibility of extension but 3 months to start."

I'm really not surprised, as landlords offering new tenancies (on places that were rented within the last 2 years) are really losing out compared to new tenancies on places not previously let.

Gumbo

Lux23 wrote: »

Well you couldn't legally increase it.

I could have previously.

sublime1

sublime1 wrote: »

Looks like a lot of landords are taking the holding position of offering their properties for short leases (less than 6months) to see how this plays out. Was just looking on Daft and have seen a few like this one http://www.daft.ie/21706209 "Short term lease only. Possibility of extension but 3 months to start."

I'm really not surprised, as landlords offering new tenancies (on places that were rented within the last 2 years) are really losing out compared to new tenancies on places not previously let.

What legally constitutes "moving out" if it came right down to the technicalities of it I wonder.

Is there a potential for someone agreeing with the LL to "move out" for a day or two (given correct notice, hand back keys, get their deposit back etc but leave their stuff in the house) and then re-lease it and move back in again on a fresh new tenancy for just short of 6 months again and so on thus never acquiring part 4 rights. Ok, a lot of people wouldn't rent a place with these constraints but with demand as it is you will definitely find takers.

sublime1

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

What legally constitutes "moving out" if it came right down to the technicalities of it I wonder.

I honestly don't know, and I wouldn't like to see landlords going down that road. However, if this short term leasing becomes the norm, you can be sure Big Daddy Government is going to step in and try to put a stop to it!

testaccount123

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

Ok, a lot of people wouldn't rent a place with these constraints but with demand as it is you will definitely find takers.

No you wouldnt.

testaccount123

testaccount123 wrote: »

No you wouldnt.

I can guarantee you would, do you realise how hard it is to find a place particularity in cities.

Michael D Not Higgins

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

What legally constitutes "moving out" if it came right down to the technicalities of it I wonder.

Is there a potential for someone agreeing with the LL to "move out" for a day or two (given correct notice, hand back keys, get their deposit back etc but leave their stuff in the house) and then re-lease it and move back in again on a fresh new tenancy for just short of 6 months again and so on thus never acquiring part 4 rights. Ok, a lot of people wouldn't rent a place with these constraints but with demand as it is you will definitely find takers.

That's the kind of thing the RTB would definitely look down on. It is intentionally circumventing the security of tenure granted by the Act.

A corollary that comes to mind is the temporary contracts of employment, where you must be made permanent after 4 years. There are requirements within Unfair Dismissals which say if there is a break of less than 3 months, it is still considered continuous service.

While I don't know of a fixed period of time for tenancies, I would fully expect the RTB to unhold it as continuous habitation if 'moved out' to intentionally avoid the legal protections afforded by the RTA.

testaccount123

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

I can guarantee you would, do you realise how hard it is to find a place particularity in cities.

You think people are going to pay fifteen thousand euro a year and cede their security of tenure entirely to a landlord who can throw them out at any point every few months.

OK.

sublime1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's the kind of thing the RTB would definitely look down on. It is intentionally circumventing the security of tenure granted by the Act.

A corollary that comes to mind is the temporary contracts of employment, where you must be made permanent after 4 years. There are requirements within Unfair Dismissals which say if there is a break of less than 3 months, it is still considered continuous service.

While I don't know of a fixed period of time for tenancies, I would fully expect the RTB to unhold it as continuous habitation if 'moved out' to intentionally avoid the legal protections afforded by the RTA.

I have to agree with you, but the fact that we're even having this conversation shows that the market is in turmoil, with landlords deeply unhappy with the recent legislation. There was talk of a constitutional challenge but I've heard nothing more since. I suppose it's still early days, and landlords doing these short leases are trying to keep their options open.
I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been more on this story since Christmas.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's the kind of thing the RTB would definitely look down on. It is intentionally circumventing the security of tenure granted by the Act.

A corollary that comes to mind is the temporary contracts of employment, where you must be made permanent after 4 years. There are requirements within Unfair Dismissals which say if there is a break of less than 3 months, it is still considered continuous service.

While I don't know of a fixed period of time for tenancies, I would fully expect the RTB to unhold it as continuous habitation if 'moved out' to intentionally avoid the legal protections afforded by the RTA.

Yes I figured the RTB wouldn't look kindly on it but maybe there is a strict definition of moved out that the RTB would have to accept. Not suggesting people do this btw it just came to mind reading posts about how LLs will approach things with the new rules. Changing tenant every 5.5 months will probably be the way things will go for LLs not wanting to get stuck with the new rules.

testaccount123 wrote: »

You think people are going to pay fifteen thousand euro a year and cede their security of tenure entirely to a landlord who can throw them out at any point every few months.

OK.

If the option is a box room in a houseshare (which would only suit a single person also) or paying top dollar for a B&B while showing up to places with 20 others queuing to view them yes I think so.

Electric Sheep

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

Yes I figured the RTB wouldn't look kindly on it but maybe there is a strict definition of moved out that the RTB would have to accept. Not suggesting people do this btw it just came to mind reading posts about how LLs will approach things with the new rules. Changing tenant every 5.5 months will probably be the way things will go for LLs not wanting to get stuck with the new rules.



If the option is a box room in a houseshare (which would only suit a single person also) or paying top dollar for a B&B while showing up to places with 20 others queuing to view then yes I think so.

I doubt that any tenant worth having would agree to that. You would get bottom of the barrel tenants for bottom of the barrel rental terms.

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I doubt that any tenant worth having would agree to that. You would get bottom of the barrel tenants for bottom of the barrel rental terms.

I disagree, if people would take it as being a 5 month let and say "in 5 months I'll look for somewhere else but at least its somewhere for now" if its a nice place and they are still struggling to find a place in 5 months then you can be sure they will say "Sure I might was well stay another 5 months now and see if I can get another place then etc.

Remember plenty of people rent room from owners or self contained units in owners homes for a fair amount of money and they have little or no rights.

testaccount123

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

I disagree, if people would take it as being a 5 month let and say "in 5 months I'll look for somewhere else but at least its somewhere for now" if its a nice place and they are still struggling to find a place in 5 months then you can be sure they will say "Sure I might was well stay another 5 months now and see if I can get another place then etc.

Remember plenty of people rent room from owners or self contained units in owners homes for a fair amount of money and they have little or no rights.

The example cited is 15 grand a year in rent. We are not talking about the same market as licencees or students or clueless kids living in box rooms or house-shares or others at the bottom end of the market. No professional in an urban area is going to agree to waive their security of tenure or other basic protections while shelling out 15K a year for a service, they'll rent elsewhere and the LL will end up with the dregs of the prospective tenant market.

Electric Sheep

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

I disagree, if people would take it as being a 5 month let and say "in 5 months I'll look for somewhere else but at least its somewhere for now" if its a nice place and they are still struggling to find a place in 5 months then you can be sure they will say "Sure I might was well stay another 5 months now and see if I can get another place then etc.

Remember plenty of people rent room from owners or self contained units in owners homes for a fair amount of money and they have little or no rights.

With how much respect do you think a tenant in those circumstances would treat the property?

testaccount123

Electric Sheep wrote: »

With how much respect do you think a tenant in those circumstances would treat the property?

The only tenants a property like that is likely to attract are ones with zero knowledge or respect for the rights and obligations that are the norm in a professional tenant-landlord business arrangement. Over-holding would become rife in such a scenario.

Graham

testaccount123 wrote: »

The only tenants a property like that is likely to attract are ones with zero knowledge or respect for the rights and obligations that are the norm in a professional tenant-landlord business arrangement. Over-holding would become rife in such a scenario.

It's entirely likely that a quite respectable tenant would take up a short-term letting while they source longer-term accommodation in an area they wish to remain, or an area they are in the process of buying in.

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

With how much respect do you think a tenant in those circumstances would treat the property?

I'd imagine plenty would treat it very well.

Do you think the place in question will rent for 3 months and by a good tenant? The reality is anyone renting it for 3 months will be doing it to get them through the next 3 months no different to the scenario I was mentioning.

At the end of the day it was just something that came to mind, I've seen and heard of things far more outlandish happening so I find it strange that you are so sure something like that wouldn't be a runner in a times of a massive housing shortage.

testaccount123 wrote: »

The only tenants a property like that is likely to attract are ones with zero knowledge or respect for the rights and obligations that are the norm in a professional tenant-landlord business arrangement. Over-holding would become rife in such a scenario.

Someone may simply have no other option, are you forgetting how hard it is to find a place? A new person or family moving to the city and can't find a place what are they going to do. Turn down a job, live in a B&B or take up a short term lease to tide them over?

testaccount123

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

Someone may simply have no other option, are you forgetting how hard it is to find a place? A new person or family moving to the city and can't find a place what are they going to do. Turn down a job, live in a B&B or take up a short term lease to tide them over?

I just moved into a new place. It took me three viewings to find it, the transaction was complete in five days. If I had been presented with a lease for three months once I'd finished laughing at the landlord I'd have swiftly moved on to the next one.

You are grossly overstating how difficult it is to find a property at this end of the market. All the pressure is at the entry level.

Electric Sheep

testaccount123 wrote: »

I just moved into a new place. It took me three viewings to find it, the transaction was complete in five days. If I had been presented with a lease for three months once I'd finished laughing at the landlord I'd have swiftly moved on to the next one.

You are grossly overstating how difficult it is to find a property at this end of the market. All the pressure is at the entry level.

This is true - as with most things in life, having money = having choice. Only those with no option would go for a deal like the one proposed. Otherwise the rent would have to be wildly discounted to get a decent tenant.

Graham

Electric Sheep wrote: »

This is true - as with most things in life, having money = having choice. Only those with no option would go for a deal like the one proposed. Otherwise the rent would have to be wildly discounted to get a decent tenant.

As with most things in life, different people have different priorities/pressures and make different choices.

While there's no reason to suspect you or testaccount123 wouldn't decline a short term tenancy, I can state with some certainty that you're not in a position to state the same for all tenants.

Electric Sheep

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

I'd imagine plenty would treat it very well.

Do you think the place in question will rent for 3 months and by a good tenant? The reality is anyone renting it for 3 months will be doing it to get them through the next 3 months no different to the scenario I was mentioning.

At the end of the day it was just something that came to mind, I've seen and heard of things far more outlandish happening so I find it strange that you are so sure something like that wouldn't be a runner in a times of a massive housing shortage.


Someone may simply have no other option, are you forgetting how hard it is to find a place? A new person or family moving to the city and can't find a place what are they going to do. Turn down a job, live in a B&B or take up a short term lease to tide them over?

Very few people would uproot their family for a temporary 3 month lease, and a single person wouldn't bother renting a whole house for a temporary situation. A B & B would be a better solution, and move the family when a permanent home has been secured.

_Jamie_

Graham wrote: »

As with most things in life, different people have different priorities/pressures and make different choices.

While there's no reason to suspect you or testaccount123 wouldn't decline a short term tenancy, I can state with some certainty that you're not in a position to state the same for all tenants.

I could see someone who has just rocked up to a new city taking a short term lease while they get settled. I know I would if I was fresh off the bus. But once people settle in to an area, in general they are going to want more security than that as moving is a giant pain in the arse. I wouldn't say that there would be no decent tenants in the market for continuous short term leases but I can't imagine there would an awful lot of choice. It seems short-sighted for any landlord to limit their options like that as they might lose out on good tenants.

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

It seems short-sighted for any landlord to limit their options like that as they might lose out on good tenants.

Its better than getting stuck with bad ones for 6 years.

donkeykong5

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

_Jamie_ wrote: »

It seems short-sighted for any landlord to limit their options like that as they might lose out on good tenants.

Its better than getting stuck with bad ones for 6 years.

72 monthly payments .......not bad at all

_Jamie_

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

Its better than getting stuck with bad ones for 6 years.

Why would anyone who views tenants with such contempt even want to be a landlord, makes no sense. You are overwhelmingly likely to get perfectly decent longterm tenants. This forum just concentrates the horror stories that are rare in real life. And a wrecked property could as easily happen in the hands of a short-term tenant and it's easier for them to skip off into the sunset if they do.

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Why would anyone who views tenants with such contempt even want to be a landlord, makes no sense. You are overwhelmingly likely to get perfectly decent longterm tenants. This forum just concentrates the horror stories that are rare in real life. And a wrecked property could as easily happen in the hands of a short-term tenant and it's easier for them to skip off into the sunset if they do.

Many LLs don't want tenants too long term though and would prefer to have fresh ones in every few years. The 4 year part 4 was reasonable enough but now its gone to 6 years I can see why LLs don't want to be tied to the same people for that long.

Graham

_Jamie_ wrote: »

This forum just concentrates the horror stories that are rare in real life.

There's a parallel forum somewhere that contains thousands of posts from landlords professing how awesome their tenants are. It's not very interesting to read.

:pac:

Seriously though, yes the horror stories are rare but they can be so devastating for a landlord who can only really watch from the sidelines it's hardly surprising that a further weakening of a landlords position results in such discussion.

_Jamie_

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

Many LLs don't want tenants too long term though and would prefer to have fresh ones in every few years. The 4 year part 4 was reasonable enough but now its gone to 6 years I can see why LLs don't want to be tied to the same people for that long.

Well, fair enough, but if it's a choice between 6 years and 3 month spells, I can't see how the latter is any more preferable, especially as once supply increases which it eventually will hopefully, 3 months leases will become an increasingly unattractive prospect and the quality of tenants going for short leases will continue to decrease. Even now, it's an unattractive prospect, but there might be some decent takers in the current market. Better to put efforts into finding good long-term tenants, IMO, and in this market a landlord willing to put in the time and effort will have plenty of choice of good tenants.

_Jamie_

Graham wrote: »

There's a parallel forum somewhere that contains thousands of posts from landlords professing how awesome their tenants are. It's not very interesting to read.

:pac:

Seriously though, yes the horror stories are rare but they can be so devastating for a landlord who can only really watch from the sidelines it's hardly surprising that a further weakening of a landlords position results in such discussion.

Yes, totally. I can understand why landlord and prospective landlords are fretting about it on here.

Graham

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Yes, totally. I can understand why landlord and prospective landlords are fretting about it on here.

Particularly in a thread with the title "Landlords, what have you decided to do about the new amendments?"

_Jamie_

Graham wrote: »

Particularly in a thread with the title "Landlords, what have you decided to do about the new amendments?"

Aye, but non-landlords are going to be reading too and sticking our oar in! :pac: And why not? Some ways suggested on-thread to combat the new amendments deserve pushback! It's not an echo chamber.

Graham

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Aye, but non-landlords are going to be reading too and sticking our oar in! :pac: And why not? Some ways suggested on-thread to combat the new amendments deserve pushback! It's not an echo chamber.

It is unwise to assume that everyone that disagrees with the new amendments is a landlord. There are posters who are not landlords that object to the states interference in their constitutionally protected property rights.

d1980

I have a q and apologies if it has Been covered.

I have an apartment yielding 1,000 a month. The market is somewhere between 1400 to 1600. If I were to give it to the council on one of those 10 to 20 year leases where you get guaranteed 80% of the market rent.
Would the 80% apply to the 1000 or current market or is that also tied to the current rules?

Thanks

_Jamie_

Graham wrote: »

It is unwise to assume that everyone that disagrees with the new amendments is a landlord. There are posters who are not landlords that object to the states interference in their constitutionally protected property rights.

Then it's good I didn't make that assumption. I said non-landlords were in this thread too but I never said that only landlords object to the new amendments.

donkeykong5

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Why would anyone who views tenants with such contempt even want to be a landlord, makes no sense. You are overwhelmingly likely to get perfectly decent longterm tenants. This forum just concentrates the horror stories that are rare in real life. And a wrecked property could as easily happen in the hands of a short-term tenant and it's easier for them to skip off into the sunset if they do.

Many LLs don't want tenants too long term though and would prefer to have fresh ones in every few years. The 4 year part 4 was reasonable enough but now its gone to 6 years I can see why LLs don't want to be tied to the same people for that long.

Yeah it would be awful if the fee paying tennants started after 6 years to think of the LLS property as home. Happened in Dalkey recently.

Gumbo

Guys, I have a tenant in my property since May 2015.
Signed 12 month lease in May 2015 and has not signed a new one.

She would be entitled to Part 4 rights obviously. I haven't increased the rent since she moved in.

I want to renovate and move into this property this summer.

Can I legally serve notice, giving her the required amount of days etc?

sublime1

kceire wrote: »

Guys, I have a tenant in my property since May 2015.
Signed 12 month lease in May 2015 and has not signed a new one.

She would be entitled to Part 4 rights obviously. I haven't increased the rent since she moved in.

I want to renovate and move into this property this summer.

Can I legally serve notice, giving her the required amount of days etc?

Yes, I believe so. See section "Termination for 3 other specific reasons" here http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

Electric Sheep

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Yeah it would be awful if the fee paying tennants started after 6 years to think of the LLS property as home. Happened in Dalkey recently.

That story made me think of those mother/daughter grifter teams that you hear about in the US.

donkeykong5

kceire wrote: »

Guys, I have a tenant in my property since May 2015.
Signed 12 month lease in May 2015 and has not signed a new one.

She would be entitled to Part 4 rights obviously. I haven't increased the rent since she moved in.

I want to renovate and move into this property this summer.

Can I legally serve notice, giving her the required amount of days etc?

Why not . She is only a paying tennant. You are the wealthy landlord. Hope you got a good few bob out of her. Sleep well.

donkeykong5

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Why not . She is only a paying tennant. You are the wealthy landlord. Hope you got a good few bob out of her. Sleep well.

The LL is well within his rights it's his house and he is entitled to move into it, she will only pay for the time she is there? What's the issue? Some top class nonsense being posted today.

Blueboggirl

Have I understood this correctly, If you've just purchased a flat you intend to let, with a new tenancy, you will still have to base rent on 4pc higher than what PREVIOUS landlord/owner charged?
I'm in this exact position, sale completed 21st Dec, Currently work in UK and will for next year at least, so I want to let flat.
How do you research, document, prove or submit previous owner/tenants rent amount to base yours on?
I've read there is an exception in this scenario (after sale and new owner setting rent amount) along the lines of 'if you have done refurbishment works, such as those that require planning permission, painting and change of white goods is not enough'
Apparently work which increases the value of the property will allow an exception.
The flat I just purchased was disgusting, the poor previous owner's tennant had sat in there for at least a year, with no electric, paying no rent. The floor was destroyed, mould and grease everywhere, ive no idea how. It's so bad, I can't repair, so am gutting and refurbishing everything, bathroom, ensure, kitchen, flooring the lot. So who decides if the work I carry out is enough to apply the exception to?

size5

Blueboggirl wrote: »

Have I understood this correctly, If you've just purchased a flat you intend to let, with a new tenancy, you will still have to base rent on 4pc higher than what PREVIOUS landlord/owner charged?
I'm in this exact position, sale completed 21st Dec, Currently work in UK and will for next year at least, so I want to let flat.
How do you research, document, prove or submit previous owner/tenants rent amount to base yours on?
I've read there is an exception in this scenario (after sale and new owner setting rent amount) along the lines of 'if you have done refurbishment works, such as those that require planning permission, painting and change of white goods is not enough'
Apparently work which increases the value of the property will allow an exception.
The flat I just purchased was disgusting, the poor previous owner's tennant had sat in there for at least a year, with no electric, paying no rent. The floor was destroyed, mould and grease everywhere, ive no idea how. It's so bad, I can't repair, so am gutting and refurbishing everything, bathroom, ensure, kitchen, flooring the lot. So who decides if the work I carry out is enough to apply the exception to?

Someone may need to correct me on this but if you carrying out "significant repairs" the rent can be increased-look at RTB site to check this out also was mentioned here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057678276&page=38

daithi7

<deleted post snipped>

Is the poor previous owner who ended up providing the housing needs for this person(& their family) free of charge for over a year ok I wonder!? That is the real question imho. The freeloading, sponging attitude of some people who expect everything for half nothing is galling, tbh.

They should emigrate to Trumpland and see how they like it there instead maybe!! :-)

Blueboggirl

<deleted post snipped>


The poor human was the landlord, I worded that badly. The tenant got a years free rent and spent his days throwing food up the walls.

The_Conductor

Guys (and gals)- plenty of posters are skating on very thin ice posting in this thread. Please be cognisant of the subject matter and that this forum is for the enjoyment of all- and comply with the forum's charter- before posting here. Persistent offenders will be banned from the forum.

If you suspect a poster is trolling- please don't feed the troll- use the report post function and let one of the moderation team take action.

Thanks all.

TheDoc

I think what I've taken from this thread thus far is that I'm actually happy that the government is making some inroads into tackling the wild west show that the private rental market operates in, and that hopefully the generation or two behind me can operate in an environment where there is consistent and streamlined operations from landlord to landlord. It's an absolute laughing stock reading landlord opinion sometimes on this forum, and I feel blessed with the landlords I've had to deal with.

I literally just saw a post advising someone to look for six month deposit up front haha.

As with anything that is a hot topic, or has public interest, where it can't be self regulated it then opens up to state legislation where in the end it always ends up benefiting the public, as they are the votes to secure. There is enough history here to learn from with the likes of Taxi's and so many others. A gravy train never lasts forever, and when Government gets involved it's usually a massive axe swung that cuts too deep.

Surprised landlords didn't get their act together and create some form of recognised organisation where there is a signup to a certain code of ethics and the likes. Especially for small landlords or accidental landlords.

It's a hot topic that will continue likely until the next election. Whatever about your mortage or costs, if the general public and tenants are having less disposable income caused by rising costs, a government will tackle this. It won't fit their re-election narrative to say how they saved Ireland from recession and champion our economic growth, if people arn't feeling it. I'd imagine after the success/failure of the Insurance group who were tasked with investigating and creating a report of recommendations, I'd envisage a similar thing tasked this year for private rent.

And I'd imagine in any report or probe, the first thing that will appear and be recommended will be the unregulated nature of the market and how landlords simply act at will. Doubt it will be long before landlords operating here will be required to adhere to set a regulations, conduct rules and strict parameters for entering and leaving contracts with tenants. But on the positive, hopefully that consistency and transparency will create less hassle for both parties.

Still baffles me how much confusion, disagreement and in somecases misinformation occurs when I read threads relating to landlords. It really does show how someone needs to step in to set up some structure, because its a basket case at the moment. And as I said, if people were smarter they would have seen this coming and organised a bit of self regulation. That is typically enough to satisfy the state and keep them at arms length for a while. But as usual, when the gravy train is chugging along, hard to consciously put a stop to it

Graham

TheDoc wrote: »

And I'd imagine in any report or probe, the first thing that will appear and be recommended will be the unregulated nature of the market and how landlords simply act at will.

Are you quite sure you're referring to the Irish Rental market?

I can't remember any point in time when landlords could 'simply act at will' but then again I wasn't around for the formation of the state so perhaps you're talking historically.