Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What to do

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    listermint wrote: »
    There in lies the problem, In being professional then the landlord should realise they have contact commitments therefore chucking tenants out for family doesnt really appear like they are qualified to be in the business does it.

    Also the family member should be savvy enough to understand its a business and has contractual obligations.

    Basically youve said the opposite to being a professional landlord.

    Is someone not a professional business owner if they employ a family member ahead of someone else. If so there are a hell of a lot of non-professional business owners in the world.

    Why does asking tenants to move out for a family member mean a person is not a professional LL, to be frank that's total nonsense. The only obligation or "commitments" the LL has to tenants is to abide by the rules of the lease and/or the tenancy laws. Giving correct notice for a family member to move in is perfectly reasonable. Your own personal dislike or issue with LLs is clouding your judgement.

    At the end of the day the tenant does not own the property and they should not expect to have absolute rights to stay, there should and will always be reasons why a LL is entitled to regain his property. Renting should never give the same rights as ownership simple as that and the sooner people accept this the better.


  • Options
    #63
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Not forever but certainly more security than we have now. This is our home. And we are paying for it.

    And so far no rental has ever been my "dream home" ... The next one has promise but I have a lease for a year only.

    How much more security can you get? A lease is always for a term whether it be your home or your business. If you want a lifetime lease then it's a case of getting a mortgage and buying, sorry if that's harsh but it's the truth. Otherwise why would anyone buy property?

    The OP has been living in his house for 6 years and will get 4 months notice to move. I'm just not sure how much more people want?


  • Options
    #64
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    pilly wrote: »
    I'm just not sure how much more people want?

    People want to rent from professional businesses whose interest it is in to keep their tenants in the property long term, not just for as long as it happens to suit some amateur landlord. This is how it works elsewhere, my mother-in-law in France has been in her rented property for 40 years.

    Thankfully legislation is going in the right direction, eventually disposing of the property or major structural works will be the only allowed reasons to evict.


  • Options
    #65
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    People want to rent from professional businesses whose interest it is in to keep their tenants in the property long term, not just for as long as it happens to suit some amateur landlord. This is how it works elsewhere, my mother-in-law in France has been in her rented property for 40 years.

    Thankfully legislation is going in the right direction, eventually disposing of the property or major structural works will be the only allowed reasons to evict.

    Fair points but whilst it's an ideal situation to aim for it's not the current situation. 75% of LL's currently are small LL's. Okay, maybe they'll all get out of the market but that isn't necessarily the solution either. Do you think the vulture funds and the like will have any interest in keeping thousands of houses in rural Ireland? No. They will only be interested in low maintenance properties in areas of large population. So we can't have it every which way.


  • Options
    #66
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    I'm pretty sure the vulture funds will be reigned in . I also think a difference should be made between a 'private rental' form a once off landlord and renting from large property companies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Thankfully legislation is going in the right direction, eventually disposing of the property or major structural works will be the only allowed reasons to evict.

    Retaking the property for your own or a family member should be a fundamental right no way should a tenant have power to stay in a house over the owner or a family member of the owner.

    I would see the right to evict for sale having much more chance of being removed than for your own or a family members use. Neither should even be considered for removal however from the rules however.


  • Options
    #68
    jsd1004
    Registered Users Posts: 719 ✭✭✭jsd1004


    listermint wrote: »
    As a professional landlord then id imagine you would be advocating for longer leases and protections on both sides. Because this sort of thing 'my brother needs your home' doesnt occur on the continent.

    Whilst its an asset for you its a home for the tenant.

    Landlords seem to want it both ways, i.e. its an asset that gives me a return via rental but i can take that house off you whenever i want to give to family....

    We need protections both ways either via longer leases better contracts and deposit escrow, time to start getting professional in this country.

    Sorry but it does happen on the continent. I have property in Spain and they have recently changed the law and know it is much more pro landlord. BTW I am a tenant and landlord in Spain.

    http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Spain/Landlord-and-Tenant

    And I agree residential property should be rented on the same basis as commercial property is in this country. All property should be rented shell and core and the tenant furnishes paints it etc. Same as commercial if you want a fully furnished unit on a long term lease you should be required to pay key money to the value of the fit out and sell on the leasehold with the landlords consent.


  • Options
    #69
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Dayana Sticky Eyeglass wrote: »
    Retaking the property for your own or a family member should be a fundamental right no way should a tenant have power to stay in a house over the owner or a family member of the owner.

    I would see the right to evict for sale having much more chance of being removed than for your own or a family members use. Neither should even be considered for removal however from the rules however.

    Do you think such a clause should be inserted in all business contracts then? Pick up a car on PCP only to have the dealer ring you and tell you to bring it back because he needs it for his nephew Jimmy who is learning to drive.

    That sounds a bit ridiculous doesnt it?


  • Options
    #70
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Do you think such a clause should be inserted in all business contracts then? Pick up a car on PCP only to have the dealer ring you and tell you to bring it back because he needs it for his nephew Jimmy who is learning to drive.

    That sounds a bit ridiculous doesnt it?

    When the dealer first acquires a car and subsequently provides it to a member of the public, is it on the understanding that he has the legal right to re-claim the car if a family member needs it?

    If not, it's not really a valid comparison.


  • Options
    #71
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Do you think such a clause should be inserted in all business contracts then? Pick up a car on PCP only to have the dealer ring you and tell you to bring it back because he needs it for his nephew Jimmy who is learning to drive.

    That sounds a bit ridiculous doesnt it?

    No because you've purchased the car on finance.

    You haven't purchased the house that you're renting.

    Same as renting a car using your analogy, you can't keep it forever.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Graham wrote: »
    When the dealer first acquires a car and subsequently provides it to a member of the public, is it on the understanding that he has the legal right to re-claim the car if a family member needs it?

    No, because that would be absurd.


  • Options
    #73
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    No, because that would be absurd.


    How about this for a more accurate comparison.

    You rent a car from Hertz, halfway through the rental period, the government change the legislation to say the renter can keep the car for 6 years and Hertz have no right to get it back.

    Sounds a bit ridiculous doesn't it?


  • Options
    #74
    budhabob
    Registered Users Posts: 4,867 ✭✭✭budhabob


    April 73 wrote: »
    Honestly if I were you, I would insist on the legal requirement of offical notification in writing with correct notice & say to the landlord that you'll want first refusal on the getting property back if the brother fails to move in, which you will check.
    Call me a cynic but it smells of wanting to get you out.

    This is what I did in a similar situation. Also applies is property becomes vacant in 6months. I suspected he was going to attempt jumping the rent hence the notification.

    This is your legal right.


  • Options
    #75
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    budhabob wrote: »
    This is what I did in a similar situation. Also applies is property becomes vacant in 6months. I suspected he was going to attempt jumping the rent hence the notification.

    This is your legal right.

    Agreed but the OP has already offered the market rent which more than likely rules out a false termination to hike the rent.


  • Options
    #76
    StupidLikeAFox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Do you think such a clause should be inserted in all business contracts then? Pick up a car on PCP only to have the dealer ring you and tell you to bring it back because he needs it for his nephew Jimmy who is learning to drive.

    That sounds a bit ridiculous doesnt it?
    testaccount123 wrote: »
    No, because that would be absurd.

    It was an absurd comparison in the first place.

    Love it or hate it, the landlord owns the house and it sounds like he can legally take it back due to the valid reason of needing it for a family member. You can look for all the loopholes etc to stay a bit longer, but you might be better off putting your effort into looking for a new house and negotiating a smooth transition


  • Options
    #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Do you think such a clause should be inserted in all business contracts then? Pick up a car on PCP only to have the dealer ring you and tell you to bring it back because he needs it for his nephew Jimmy who is learning to drive.

    That sounds a bit ridiculous doesnt it?

    Buying a car on PCP is the equivalent of buying a house with a mortgage. Totally incomparable to the topic being discussed.


  • Options
    #78
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    pilly wrote: »
    So a LL has a commitment to rent a property forever more unless a tenant decides they want to move?

    If that was the case why would anyone bother buying a home and putting in the hard work and maintenance involved. Just rent your dream home for life, never move out!

    Explain where in any of my post I said that? Give as much detail as you can


  • Options
    #79
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Dayana Sticky Eyeglass wrote: »
    Is someone not a professional business owner if they employ a family member ahead of someone else. If so there are a hell of a lot of non-professional business owners in the world.

    Why does asking tenants to move out for a family member mean a person is not a professional LL, to be frank that's total nonsense. The only obligation or "commitments" the LL has to tenants is to abide by the rules of the lease and/or the tenancy laws. Giving correct notice for a family member to move in is perfectly reasonable. Your own personal dislike or issue with LLs is clouding your judgement.

    At the end of the day the tenant does not own the property and they should not expect to have absolute rights to stay, there should and will always be reasons why a LL is entitled to regain his property. Renting should never give the same rights as ownership simple as that and the sooner people accept this the better.

    Explain in detail where I said the landlord should have absolute rights.

    Your own personal chip on your shoulder that someone has a problem with landlords when they criticise someone who doesn't seem to comprehend that being a professional landlord means sticking with the commitments as you've outlined.

    No where did I say they owe a tenant more than that. But just because you have a family member looking for a house doesn't absolve those professional commitments.

    Now can you also explain in detail what dislike I have for landlords and also where I indicated anything what you have suggested.

    I suspect you will find neither and run back into a hole.


  • Options
    #80
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Graham wrote: »
    It sounds like you are confusing the landlords legal and professional commitments with your own very emotional interpretation as to what constitutes a professional landlord.

    It sounds like you can't read and I suggest you go back through all my posts on the thread.

    Its actually amusing that ye so called professionals can't stand criticism. I think you may have muddled my posts with others.

    Either way it's embarrassing that there is a lack of understanding of any posts made. You'll notice I even thanked posts that outlined the ops options in full.

    But alas typical you jump in with 2 feet.


    Lol


  • Options
    #81
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Graham wrote: »
    How about this for a more accurate comparison.

    You rent a car from Hertz, halfway through the rental period, the government change the legislation to say the renter can keep the car for 6 years and Hertz have no right to get it back.

    Sounds a bit ridiculous doesn't it?

    That is ridiculous because it's far from the truth.

    Some level of nonsense in here today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    GGTrek wrote: »
    You are obviously very unaware of how much time and money it costs a landlord to defend a case at the RTB which by rule will not grant costs. Agent will require payment to spend half a day going to and attending hearing. Witnesses will have to be paid reasonable costs for attending. If landlord is unable to prepare a defence submission he will have to pay either an experienced agent or a solicitor to prepare it. If the tenant then decides to appeal the costs escalate since the tribunal is a much more formal hearing and it is advisable to have a solicitor attending.
    In this specific case if the landlord brother cannot use the property as his residence he will incur renting costs, family dealings by the way go beyond mere money matters. In a decent family people try to help each other without expecting a financial return, but I am digressing here.

    I'm quite aware, but a tenant has rights and shouldn't be stigmatised for deciding to exercise them in the same way landlords shouldn't be stigmatised for exercising their rights. Plus, don't tenants also incur costs in time, if not also money, when pressing their case?

    Also, if, for example, the tenant decided to sub-let to his brother-in-law to spare him incurring renting costs would he not also be manifesting decency in a family context?

    The simple fact is that there is a system in place and recognised procedures and people, whether landlord or tenant, should be criticised for availing of them and pressing their rights - that's what they're there for.


  • Options
    #83
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    listermint wrote: »
    It sounds like you can't read and I suggest you go back through all my posts on the thread.

    Its actually amusing that ye so called professionals can't stand criticism. I think you may have muddled my posts with others.

    Either way it's embarrassing that there is a lack of understanding of any posts made. You'll notice I even thanked posts that outlined the ops options in full.

    I understand your position perfectly.

    You appear to think a 'professional landlord' should be expected to go above and beyond anything that's required by law.

    I disagree.

    That's not to say a landlord shouldn't or wouldn't go above and beyond but that's another conversation.

    I am curious who the 'ye so called professionals' are that you're lumping together?


  • Options
    #84
    Cartouche
    Closed Accounts Posts: 248 ✭✭Cartouche


    He may be genuine, or he may want you out so he can get a higher rate, given the current rental market, its not unlikely. Some people will do anything for an extra few quid. Just follow all correct procedure, get notice in writing stating when you need to be out, who exactly is taking over the tenancy, let the landlord know that you will check that, maybe respond in writing quoting the law on this to see if that helps


  • Options
    #85
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Dayana Sticky Eyeglass wrote: »
    Every single notice does not need to be scrutinised by the RTB. If the notice is received then all that has to be done is check that it meets the guidelines. If it does its valid if not it can be disputed.

    .
    There were people in Tyrrelstown told that their notices of termination were valid by threshold. Subsequently when they went to the RTB it was found the notices were not valid.


  • Options
    #86
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    listermint wrote:
    There in lies the problem, In being professional then the landlord should realise they have contact commitments therefore chucking tenants out for family doesnt really appear like they are qualified to be in the business does it.


    Here you go listermint, this is exactly where you've stated that a 'LL who wants to do something that is not against any rules or regulations is unprofessional.

    Can you please point out where doing something well within your rights is unprofessional?


  • Options
    #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    There were people in Tyrrelstown told that their notices of termination were valid by threshold. Subsequently when they went to the RTB it was found the notices were not valid.

    I wouldn't trust threashold as far as I'd throw them. Though it's usually the other way around they are, encouraging tenants to break the rules.

    Any one who can do a bit of background reading about it should be well able to work out of their notice is valid or not. There should be a fine for going to the RTB just for the sake of it imo.


  • Options
    #88
    Specialun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,068 ✭✭✭Specialun


    Update

    His now decided to tell the bro in law to look at other options..his kinda let it up in the air tbh. Im away with work for two weeks and his just said he will call me in two weeks. No word on whether we will pay the increased rent or not. I would think its a positive that they have said it..but who knows


  • Options
    #89
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Graham wrote: »
    I understand your position perfectly.

    You appear to think a 'professional landlord' should be expected to go above and beyond anything that's required by law.

    I disagree.

    That's not to say a landlord shouldn't or wouldn't go above and beyond but that's another conversation.

    I am curious who the 'ye so called professionals' are that you're lumping together?

    Again i ask you, where i said that.

    can you post a quote please.

    Or you could do as you have been doing and twisting words because you have a gripe with people holding landlords to the their NORMAL obligations.


  • Options
    #90
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    pilly wrote: »
    Here you go listermint, this is exactly where you've stated that a 'LL who wants to do something that is not against any rules or regulations is unprofessional.

    Can you please point out where doing something well within your rights is unprofessional?

    Ok can you dissect that comment and explain to me where

    A) it says the landlord has to go above his contractual obligations

    B) where the OP's landlord understands his professional obligations

    It appears now from the updated post from the OP the landlord now has suddenly been informed of these professional obligations and has realised that they cant just chuck a tenant out of a home due to the conditions above.

    So i guess ill be waiting forever for youself graham and nox to break apart my comments on this matter and fess up to they fact that the 3 of you read them wrong and came out with the classic attack because you read what you wanted to read.



    I guess you are clear OP, im glad another landlord now realises that when he gets into the business he has to operate it like a business and that comes with requirements and treating his asset has some personal playbox when hes signed a contract with a tenant isnt really on.

    And the same goes for tenants.

    Now i like Graham and the rest of the crew to go review my posts as they have been clearly straight down the middle in their content.

    good day


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    listermint wrote: »
    Again i ask you, where i said that.

    can you post a quote please.

    Or you could do as you have been doing and twisting words because you have a gripe with people holding landlords to the their NORMAL obligations.

    A LL is not obliged to keep renting a house to someone if he chooses to live in himself, a family member wants to move in.

    What other meaning can we take from your posts other than you think that asking tenants to move out in order to move in a family member is somehow not keeping their obligations when you are replying to posts saying a LL is perfectly entitled to give notice in this instance with comments about it not being professional and not respecting obligations.


Advertisement