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

athtrasna

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.
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.

Mod note

You are starting to sound like a broken record, you have posted this same post numerous times. No more please.

Lumen

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.

If you own a property it is simply wrong to prevent you from having control over it that's why it's so contentious. The idea of indefinite tenancies is madness to me, giving a renter more control over a property worth 100's of thousands than the person who took the risk to buy it.

The way things were with the possibility to terminate for any reason every 4 years was reasonable enough along with being able to terminate for sale or moving in. Not being able to have vacant possession for sale will cut more than half the market for the house out thus reducing the sale price for the owner. Also as was/is the case simply wanting to get in fresh tenants after 4 years should be allowed.

Lumen

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

If you own a property it is simply wrong to prevent you from having control over it that's why it's so contentious.

That's your view, others differ. The law restricts what you can do with it when you're renting it out, balancing your rights against those who depend on renting to put a roof over their heads. If you don't like the rules you can sell it, that's what this thread it about.

I was considering becoming a landlord before I sold my last house. None of the new amendments would have deterred me. What did deter me was my own laziness, aversion to home market bias and need for diversification. These amendments just don't seem that much of a big deal for a professional investment.

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

The idea of indefinite tenancies is madness to me, giving a renter more control over a property worth 100's of thousands than the person who took the risk to buy it.

What control does the renter have, other than the right to stay in exchange for paying the rent? Can they make physical alterations? Can they redecorate however they want? Can they sublet? Can they stay if they have another child? Do they even have the right to get high speed broadband installed if that requires drilling through a wall?

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

The way things were with the possibility to terminate for any reason every 4 years was reasonable enough along with being able to terminate for sale or moving in.

The combination of those rights meant a lot of insecurity for tenants, making renting a poor long-term option. That feed the "must buy" psychosis and was a significant driver of the last crash for which we all paid dearly. Speaking personally, I've lost many tens of thousands of euros in extra income taxes and pension levies, and I'd rather it didn't happen again.

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

Also as was/is the case simply wanting to get in fresh tenants after 4 years should be allowed.

Why would you want that? Do tenants have a shelf life?

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

Not being able to have vacant possession for sale will cut more than half the market for the house out thus reducing the sale price for the owner.

OK, that's a fair point. You can't sell it with sitting tenants to an owner occupier, and that might reduce the sale price (it's hardly likely to increase it).

GGTrek

Graham wrote: »

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.

Please check this thread I started in the legal forum: https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057686033?fuid=102080737
It is all nice political posturing from Coveney, but his legal advisors should have told him the truth: any notice of termination for a tenancy beyond 6 months needs a reason to be valid, section 62(1)(e) of the RTA 2004. This is the law and not the vague intentions of a politician. If Coveney meant what he said in that statement he should have changed section 62(1)(e) at the same time as repealing section 42. It is obvious to me that he was either acting in bad faith or just plain sloppy.
In any case please reply in the legal thread on this issue, I believe it is more appropriate.

Graham

GGTrek wrote: »

Please check this thread I started in the legal forum: https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057686033?fuid=102080737

Nope, not a hope I'm going near that. It reads like a ransom note taken from random section of housing acts.

GGTrek wrote: »

It is all nice political posturing from Coveney, but his legal advisors should have told him the truth: any notice of termination for a tenancy beyond 6 months needs a reason to be valid, section 62(1)(e) of the RTA 2004.

You should tell him, or better still submit a question to his office.

GGTrek wrote: »

This is the law and not the vague intentions of a politician. If Coveney meant what he said in that statement he should have changed section 62(1)(e) at the same time as repealing section 42. It is obvious to me that he was either acting in bad faith or just plain sloppy.
In any case please reply in the legal thread on this issue, I believe it is more appropriate.

I'll reserve judgment on the reality until there's something concrete to reference including interpretations by considered legal opinions who are prepared to put their names against the interpretations.

I don't see the point in running around in circles proclaiming the sky is falling in until that happens.

GGTrek

Lumen wrote: »

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

You are comparing apples with pears here. Totally different legislation and redress in court. The biggest difference: breaking a commercial lease implies penalties for both parties either tenant or landlord. Law is totally skewed pro-tenant for residential leases: tenant can give notice of termination for no reason at anytime, landlord cannot. Even worse tenant just picks up his stuff and leaves, landlord will have a hard time to convince the RTB that he can keep at least the deposit as a penalty for breach of contract.
In addition civil courts for commercial leases working with balance of probabilities for both parties, RTB for residential leases working most of the time with probable cause for tenant evidence and beyond reasonable doubt for landlord evidence.

sublime1

I'm running out of time here as my tenants move out next week, and I can't afford to hang around waiting with an empty mortgaged house to see how this unfolds, so I'm going to have to go ahead and advertise the house. One thing I know for sure that when I advertise my house at the 4% increase from the previous rent, I'm going to be deluged with applicants. On one hand, this is a good thing, as I'm sure there will be some wonderful applicants who I'd be very happy to rent to. On the other hand, I don't have clarity about the legislation.
A friend pointed out that applicants will offer all kinds of incentives to win the house. Naturally I feel very uncomfortable in this situation. How would people suggest to handle proposals like that from potential tenants?
What extra charges could I legally separate out from the rent?
Could I ask for a larger deposit for peace of mind against negligent tenants, or is a deposit equal to one month rent the legal maximum?

tuisginideach

You can ask for any deposit you like. I have seen recommendations here for asking for deposit plus first month's rent and last month's rent.

76544567

Sublime1.
Maybe ask for 6 months deposit and 6 months rent in advance payable every 6 months. That will definitely whittle it down. You will have less to choose from but what you do have will be well off and very careful as they have skin in the game.

Or this is one I was looking at before I decided to bail out of the business bar one property left in it.

I have spoken to agents about it and they are all looking at how to implement these things. I'm sure it will take a month or two to nail the process down but the gist of it is ....

Use an agent to look after your property.
Basically hand the agent the keys and you forget all about it. The agent is to ding a tenant, deal with the hem at all times collect the rent every month, look after and organise all repairs and maintenance etc.

Specify to the agent that you will not be paying them for this and that they can agree payment on a monthly basis with the tenant.

You might as well cut down on your workload since you now don't get paid enough for it.

Tell the agent to separate out the apartment management charges etc from the rent to. And parking space charge.

You may also be able to rent the apartment with no furniture and have the tenant rent furniture for you on a yearly contract.

Maybe you can charge an administrative, or key charge etc.

Basically anything that you normally used to suck up the cost of, you now charge separately to the rent. There are many agents looking into this kind of think, so talk to as many of them as you can before you make a decision. They will have solicitors etc on the case as their business is in jeapordy now.

I was even talking to one who is going to start a new business where the agent rents your property from you and then sublets it for themselves. They rent it for x number of years and.you forget all about it. Then they hand it back to you at the end in the same condition as you have it to them, and empty. Sort of like how hap etc should really work.

Another option is to just get out of the business if it suits too.

76544567

76544567 wrote: »

They rent it for x number of years and.you forget all about it. Then they hand it back to you at the end in the same condition as you have it to them, and empty. Sort of like how hap etc should really work.

This is how rental works in other countries with a mature rental market. Rent the four walls and ceiling. Its ridiculous for a long term rental that you have to be responsible for things like the tenants toaster, for example.

76544567

Deleted User wrote: »

This is how rental works in other countries with a mature rental market. Rent the four walls and ceiling. Its ridiculous for a long term rental that you have to be responsible for things like the tenants toaster, for example.

Very true.
I was talking about handing the keys over to an agent who is your tenant, and they then sublet. You have nothing to do with how they want to run their sub letting of it.

Pkiernan

I think that going forward tenants in managed complexes will be paying seperately for parking and waste disposal.
I can't really see the RTB siding with a LL on other charges (insurance etc).

For new tenants I'll be looking for 1st months rent and 2 months deposit up front. Since the government refuses to protect landlords this is the only real way you can limit your exposure to dead beat tenants who will screw you over at a the drop of a hat and can do so with impunity.

Another option would be to charge for pets.

76544567

Pkiernan wrote: »

I think that going forward tenants in managed complexes will be paying seperately for parking and waste disposal.
I can't really see the RTB siding with a LL on other charges (insurance etc).

For new tenants I'll be looking for 1st months rent and 2 months deposit up front. Since the government refuses to protect landlords this is the only real way you can limit your exposure to dead beat tenants who will screw you over at a the drop of a hat and can do so with impunity.

Another option would be to charge for pets.

I can see a new rent garauntee insurance product coming in, to insure that the landlord gets paid.
Landlord can insist that the tenant has this and provide proof every month that it is paid up. Or maybe a landlord can get it and pass the cost on to the tenant.
No idea how it would work but im sure the insurance companies will have it covered.

Or possibly even use something like this that an agent has but bills the tenant as part of "tenanvy administration costs" or the like.

http://www.ukandirelandinsurance.com/Rent_Guarantee_Insurance.html

"Legal Expenses & Rent Guarantee – No Excess (12 Months)

Comprehensive Legal expenses and Rent Guarantee product covering the landlords costs for disputes between themselves and their tenants, with rent guarantee insurance up to a maximum of £2,500 per month. This is a 12 month policy which carries no excess and costs just £124.99 per annum."

There are good business minds working on the ways of separating rent from all other charges at the moment and I think in a month or two we will see what arrangements can be made. A lot of businesses may be in trouble with this new legislation, especially agents whos income is dependent on the landlord getting a good income.

Pkiernan

That's a very interesting post.
would be a great product to have here.

Its strange really that the left just doesn't understand how this new legislation hurts tenants in the long run.
When multinational REITS are running the show a lot of tenants are going to be totally screwed.

76544567

Pkiernan wrote: »

That's a very interesting post.
would be a great product to have here.

Its strange really that the left just doesn't understand how this new legislation hurts tenants in the long run.
When multinational REITS are running the show a lot of tenants are going to be totally screwed.

I think the Reits will bide their time and sweep up all of the rental property that goes on the marked.
Once they have their critical mass, watch them add charges all over the place over and above the rent.

testaccount123

Lads, if you continue price gouging, the government will just legislate against that too. You'd be better off just getting out of the game. You won't be missed.

76544567

testaccount123 wrote: »

Lads, if you continue price gouging, the government will just legislate against that too. You'd be better off just getting out of the game. You won't be missed.

I think the government have actually gone too far as it is.
Lets see if the ipoa challenge the current legislation and if they win in the new year. They wont be short of funding if they look in the right places for it.

Baby01032012

testaccount123 wrote: »

Lads, if you continue price gouging, the government will just legislate against that too. You'd be better off just getting out of the game. You won't be missed.

If as you suggest all small landlords get out of the game the housing crisis worsens as there will be fewer properties to rent.

76544567

Baby01032012 wrote: »

If as you suggest all small landlords get out of the game the housing crisis worsens as there will be fewer properties to rent.

Already about to happen. Lets see by the summer what happens.
I predict that people now will never move unless their landlord sells up.
And then since there is no market rate anymore, they will be in for some shock if they find somewhere vacant.
Or will they just overhold and fcuk the LL? Probably.

Better off out of it alright.

Baby01032012

My biggest issue with the new legislation is as follows. For example, I've 2 apartments let, one near Christchurch, one in a poor area of west Dublin. The rental value is higher on the one in west Dublin, this was let during summer at 1300 pm. One in Christchurch has been let for nearly 2 years at 1200pm, I hadn't increased the rent before the 2 year freeze came in, and when that freeze is up I'll be limited to 4% pa. With more expensive apartment, lower rent, higher management fees, the yield is much lower. As a business I'm competing with other apartments within same block that are getting 1700+ a month, €500 more than mine simply because of timing of this legislation. Now there is no level playing field, huge market distortion, where rents vary hugely within a specific area. So what do I do if I want to stay in property, sell up and buy in cheaper area with a greater yield, or just sell up decreasing rental units and making rental crisis worse.

Wailin

Pkiernan wrote: »

I think that going forward tenants in managed complexes will be paying seperately for parking and waste disposal.
I can't really see the RTB siding with a LL on other charges (insurance etc).

For new tenants I'll be looking for 1st months rent and 2 months deposit up front. Since the government refuses to protect landlords this is the only real way you can limit your exposure to dead beat tenants who will screw you over at a the drop of a hat and can do so with impunity.

Another option would be to charge for pets.

And I'll say it again since it was deleted.....
Great to see the old celtic tiger greed is still rife today and strong as ever. Keep it up lads.

testaccount123

Wailin wrote: »

And I'll say it again since it was deleted.....
Great to see the old celtic tiger greed is still rife today and strong as ever. Keep it up lads.

Openly conspiring to price gouge on a market at an all time historical high while the country is in the grip of a homelessness crisis, while at the same time warning us that if they are pushed out of the market in favour of professional property rental outfits we are all doomed. You couldn't make it up

Pkiernan

Wailin wrote: »

And I'll say it again since it was deleted.....
Great to see the old celtic tiger greed is still rife today and strong as ever. Keep it up lads.

Don't know why you are calling me greedy. But your opinion means less than nothing to me!!

My property is rented to a decent tenant for €200 per month below market.
I'm not increasing the rent on her.
Its nothing short of Marxist that I am prohibited on raising the rent to market values if and when she leaves.

If a new tenant wants to rent my property and has a pet, they will pay extra for the privilege. The last couple I had neglected to tell me about their St. Bernard which destroyed a sofa before they fcuked off back to Poland owing me rent.

And if you think for a moment that huge multinational REIT organisations wont get legislation changed when they are controlling 10's of thousands of rents, you are clueless. Even more so if you think their changes will be good for tenants.

Might be better for people like me anyway - I can sell up, sit back and invest in REITS, get a return for doing nothing
Meanwhile some poor tenant can watch his rent go up every year without fail!

Pkiernan

testaccount123 wrote: »

Openly conspiring to price gouge on a market at an all time historical high while the country is in the grip of a homelessness crisis, while at the same time warning us that if they are pushed out of the market in favour of professional property rental outfits we are all doomed. You couldn't make it up

The homelessness crisis is due to the lack of supply of houses where people want to live.

If you had any idea of how impossible it is to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent you would know this.
Any deadbeat tenant can be guaranteed of staying in their accommodation for at least 12 months before a court order to evict them would be granted. Then they'd have a 6 more months before a sheriff would remove them.
You really should try educating yourself.

76544567

Pkiernan wrote: »

Don't know why you are calling me greedy. But your opinion means less than nothing to me!!

My property is rented to a decent tenant for €200 per month below market.
I'm not increasing the rent on her.
Its nothing short of Marxist that I am prohibited on raising the rent to market values if and when she leaves.

If a new tenant wants to rent my property and has a pet, they will pay extra for the privilege. The last couple I had neglected to tell me about their St. Bernard which destroyed a sofa before they fcuked off back to Poland owing me rent.

And if you think for a moment that huge multinational REIT organisations wont get legislation changed when they are controlling 10's of thousands of rents, you are clueless. Even more so if you think their changes will be good for tenants.

Might be better for people like me anyway - I can sell up, sit back and invest in REITS, get a return for doing nothing
Meanwhile some poor tenant can watch his rent go up every year without fail!

You almost make it sound like its your property and you are in control of it.
Get that idea out of your head for starters. Its not yours anymore

testaccount123

76544567 wrote: »

You almost make it sound like its your property and you are in control of it.
Get that idea out of your head for starters. Its not yours anymore

It's almost like drawing up a legal contract for possession and handing over the keys to someone else means you cede control of the property. This seems to be a shock to Paddy de landlord, but I can assure you gents, this is how it works the world over.

Senator Palpatine

The big hole in the new rules is the treatment of decent landlords.

I was renting to good tenants for €1,200 a month while the market rent was €1,500 a month.

I would have been happy to continue doing so, with the option to increase the rent, most likely if they leave.

Sadly, on foot of these new rules and in order to protect the value of my asset, I had to write to them in the mouth of Christmas and advise them of a 25% increase in their rent (in 90 days time).

Not something I wanted to do, but doing anything else would have been idiocy.

76544567

testaccount123 wrote: »

It's almost like drawing up a legal contract for possession and handing over the keys to someone else means you cede control of the property. This seems to be a shock to Paddy de landlord, but I can assure you gents, this is how it works the world over.

You mean a legal contract that ties one side by the balls and allows the other to walk away whenever they feel like it.
Or worse, to stay and stop paying rent if they feel like it.
Or worse again, to have the side who are tied by the balls pay their own money to the very quango who is tying them by the balls.
Very fair alright.

testaccount123

76544567 wrote: »

You mean a legal contract that ties one side by the balls and allows the other to walk away whenever they feel like it.
Or worse, to stay and stop paying rent if they feel like it.
Or worse again, to have the side who are tied by the balls pay their own money to the very quango who is tying them by the balls.
Very fair alright.

One minute you're advocating gouging tenants by trying to force them into paying no end of extra charges on top of the agreed rent in a market which is at a historical high, next minute you are talking about 'fairness'.

Nobody is buying it chief.

76544567

testaccount123 wrote: »

One minute you're advocating gouging tenants by trying to force them into paying no end of extra charges on top of the agreed rent in a market which is at a historical high, next minute you are talking about 'fairness'.

Nobody is buying it chief.

Fairness. Exactly.

What I am talking about is allowing a landlord to charge an EQUAL amount to what everyone else can charge for the same property. If he has to introduce charges to bring that amount to an EQUAL amount, then thats fairness.

And I am also talking about having contracts which hold both sides to it EQUALLY.