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

LirW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057684487

Big thread about it.

Gumbo

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.

Gumbo

First rental of a property, how do these new rules effect setting the asking rent for advertisement?

76544567

kceire wrote: »

First rental of a property, how do these new rules effect setting the asking rent for advertisement?

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

islander222

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.

Selling up. Tenant broke agreement and moved out early. Decided to take option of retaining tracker on new house. Planned on upsizing this year anyway but was going to hold on to our 3 bed semi.. not now

sublime1

kceire wrote: »

First rental of a property, how do these new rules effect setting the asking rent for advertisement?

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

4ensic15

76544567 wrote: »

Sent several emails and no answer.
I haven't tried to call.
Decided I'm out anyway at this stage.
This country is totally against property investment unless you are a REIT.
And even then it's been regulated to death.

It's all one sided and against the investor.
Only option left is to sell, and they are already talking about removing that option too.

It is unrealistic to have expected a response. You are not a member. The new legislation came into effect just before Christmas. The IPOA will have to get a legal opinion from a Senior Counsel before they contemplate taking a case. There are very few SCs willing to advise on anything related to the Residential Tenancies Act (as amended). Those that are will have to be briefed and they will have to read copious legislation and previous cases and deliver an Opinion. There is no chance of having something like that done over Christmas. The IPOA cannot realistically deal with a flood of queries or give any kind of advice in the circumstances.
There is even an issue about funding a case. There was a recent court case on champerty which will have implications for this and will have to be considered.

GGTrek

4ensic15 wrote: »

76544567 wrote: »

Sent several emails and no answer.
I haven't tried to call.
Decided I'm out anyway at this stage.
This country is totally against property investment unless you are a REIT.
And even then it's been regulated to death.

It's all one sided and against the investor.
Only option left is to sell, and they are already talking about removing that option too.

It is unrealistic to have expected a response. You are not a member. The new legislation came into effect just before Christmas. The IPOA will have to get a legal opinion from a Senior Counsel before they contemplate taking a case. There are very few SCs willing to advise on anything related to the Residential Tenancies Act (as amended). Those that are will have to be briefed and they will have to read copious legislation and previous cases and deliver an Opinion. There is no chance of having something like that done over Christmas. The IPOA cannot realistically deal with a flood of queries or give any kind of advice in the circumstances.
There is even an issue about funding a case. There was a recent court case on champerty which will have implications for this and will have to be considered.

Ok, so third party funding in Irish law is not allowed. However the IPOA can simply advertise that they need new memberships and donations from new members so that they can finance the legal action and the third party funding issue would disappear, so the third-party funding issue would be solved very easily.
What IPOA should do is posting in their website a warning that they are investigating the issue and it is going to take time. In my opinion they are not handling well the public side of the issue (they never did in my opinion, that is why I am not a member)

4ensic15

GGTrek wrote: »

Ok, so third party funding in Irish law is not allowed. However the IPOA can simply advertise that they need new memberships and donations from new members so that they can finance the legal action and the third party funding issue would disappear, so the third-party funding issue would be solved very easily.
What IPOA should do is posting in their website a warning that they are investigating the issue and it is going to take time. In my opinion they are not handling well the public side of the issue (they never did in my opinion, that is why I am not a member)

The IPOA itself cannot take a case. It doesn't have locus standi. Putting anything on its website could be misleading. They are adopting a policy of saying nothing (at least to non members) for a period. It would be reckless to encourage subscriptions on the basis of a case in which they will not be a party.

76544567

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is unrealistic to have expected a response. You are not a member. The new legislation came into effect just before Christmas. The IPOA will have to get a legal opinion from a Senior Counsel before they contemplate taking a case. There are very few SCs willing to advise on anything related to the Residential Tenancies Act (as amended). Those that are will have to be briefed and they will have to read copious legislation and previous cases and deliver an Opinion. There is no chance of having something like that done over Christmas. The IPOA cannot realistically deal with a flood of queries or give any kind of advice in the circumstances.
There is even an issue about funding a case. There was a recent court case on champerty which will have implications for this and will have to be considered.

I didn't ask for any advice. I understand they need to come up with a strategy.
I asked them how I could join and how I could donate more than the membership and if they were indeed thinking about coming up.with a strategy. No response yet. And if they can't do anything about it I don't see anybody else being able to.

I had time to think it all over and do my sums anyway and the best course of action is to take the government's hint that I'm not wanted and get out of property investment in Ireland, before they decide not to let me out at all.

So once the notice periods are up, the properties will be put on the market and short term let until they sell.

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?