Ceann Comhairle forced to save government this afternoon

Elemonator

It was a stupid bill. Glad it got defeated.

beauf

mansize wrote: »

We need less a la carte, accident landlords, and a more professional system

I have a feeling people will learn that "professional" means something different to a large fund trying to maximize its profits.

beauf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

An ever growing section of society is beginning to believe that the purpose of property is housing, not wealth or investment. Expect more political action in this direction.

Where will this housing come from if not from wealth or investment.

ThisRegard

FinanceDublin wrote: »

Fair amount of misinformation in here:


"It's quite common for the Ceann Comhairle to vote these days"


All of the above is just a bit of fact checking

A bit of fact checking will show you that quote never appeared in this thread.

FinanceDublin

ThisRegard wrote: »

A bit of fact checking will show you that quote never appeared in this thread.

Typing from my phone and paraphrased. I can see how it's MILES from the actual quote - lol - "Ceann comhairle vote is not too unusual these days.". Yep. Not one since 2010. Not too unusual "these days". Ha.

jimmycrackcorm

mansize wrote: »

We need less a la carte, accident landlords, and a more professional system

There will always be a la carte or accidental landlords, not less, unless you suggest that somehow people who find themselves in such circumstances have the ability to allow their properties to remain empty and somehow pay their mortgages out of thin air.

A professional system means certainty around: security for tenants, rent increase stability, investment returns and the ability of landlords to not get hung out to dry by tenants. At the moment it's unfairly swinging in favour of tenants.

How can you get a professional system of landlords unless you can guarantee returns?

davindub

The_Conductor wrote: »

Government is looking shakey as hell- as the Ceann Comhairle was forced to use his casting vote this afternoon- when a bill from the Anti-Austerity-Alliance/People Before Profit group was put to a vote in the Dáil and the vote was tied 51 all- after Fianna Fáil abstained.

The bill would have removed the right of a landlord to end a tenancy in order to sell a property- the property would have to be sold with a sitting tenant. In addition- the bill prescribed financial compensation payments for tenants- if a landlord was forced to take back a property for their own use for any reason.

I suspect we haven't heard the last of this.

The 2016 amendment has already been passed with something similar (but not implemented yet), the landlord has to show that they would achieve greater than 20% below market value to end the tenancy if selling.

Was it much different to that? All Simon Coveney would have to do is make a statutory instrument to implement the above (no vote required).

LuckyLloyd

beauf wrote: »

Where will this housing come from if not from wealth or investment.

I should have written "primary purpose". A changed context of long term security of tenure in the rental market will still see people owning and investing in property.

The_Conductor

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I should have written "primary purpose". A changed context of long term security of tenure in the rental market will still see people owning and investing in property.

There is a complete contradiction there though- why would anyone invest in property when the regulatory environment alongside political and societal sentiment are skewed 100% in favour of tenants and 100% against landlords- pretty much without exception?

The current environment- quite simply, is toxic to anyone 'investing in property'. The only reason there are any investors still out there- is a dearth of other investment opportunities. If interest rates start to rise- as now seems inevitable (the Fed may have as many as 3 or 4 rate rises in 2017- and its only a matter of time before other central banks follow suit)- it will become increasingly unlikely that investors will plonk their money in bricks and mortar.

76544567

The_Conductor wrote: »

There is a complete contradiction there though- why would anyone invest in property when the regulatory environment alongside political and societal sentiment are skewed 100% in favour of tenants and 100% against landlords- pretty much without exception?

The current environment- quite simply, is toxic to anyone 'investing in property'. The only reason there are any investors still out there- is a dearth of other investment opportunities. If interest rates start to rise- as now seems inevitable (the Fed may have as many as 3 or 4 rate rises in 2017- and its only a matter of time before other central banks follow suit)- it will become increasingly unlikely that investors will plonk their money in bricks and mortar.

That interest rate rise scenario will very much hurt existing investors too.
If interests go up the investor cannot follow. So if the upkeep of the property is already putting the LL in the red or not making him enough profit to be worth the risk, interest rate rises on top of that will finish him altogether.
Some investors still arent anywhere near break even never mind profit.
And then if they cant even ask tenants to leave so that they can sell, or even if they are stuck to a rent that is far below market rates, they are hurt again.
Better off getting out now if you are in. And better off staying out it you arent in.
Toxic is definitely an accurate description of property investment now.

ThisRegard

FinanceDublin wrote: »

Typing from my phone and paraphrased. I can see how it's MILES from the actual quote - lol - "Ceann comhairle vote is not too unusual these days.". Yep. Not one since 2010. Not too unusual "these days". Ha.

It's not unusual for a government with the numbers that they have to get the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle.

The_Conductor

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's not unusual for a government with the numbers that they have to get the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle.

It is unusual for a government to have the numbers that they have- period.

ThisRegard

The_Conductor wrote: »

It is unusual for a government to have the numbers that they have- period.

I know, hence nobody should be surprised to see them needing the casting vote.

TallGlass

I am not a renter or land lord and I haven't read the bill but from reading over this it seems like it was setting crazy demands on landlords.

For me personally, there is only one real solution to this problem, and that is for the government to get seriously involved and for them to start paying for and building property, I cannot see any other solution, it really has just gone to far now.

Consider it another bail out of sorts so to speak.

Bigus

mansize wrote: »

We need less a la carte, accident landlords, and a more professional system

Explain with irish examples please ?

Bigus

GGTrek wrote: »

This is scary for me.

It shows that Ireland is going the direction of Venezuela with communists almost commanding the Dail vote.

FF is playing politics on the skin of the landlords.

Something like this made me realize suddently that between this year and early next year I shall have to terminate all my tenancies (they are quite a few), I am already well versed in the RTB process, it is going to take some time for the stubborn ones, but I won't let the tenants/communists politicians expropriate my properties (which is exactly what the bill was proposing) which I worked hard to purchase.

The tenants can go out there and  look for someone dumb enough to rent to them or beg to the communist politicians: let Fr McVerry and his cohort of communist politicians pay for their cake.

This is the reality of interference in the market ,

Real unintended consequences that can last a lifetime .

As a landlord It's gone in a decade from "just keep the revenue happy " to almost having to open an administratiion department for compliance on top of all the one sided risk .

witchgirl26

Lumen wrote: »

It is pure speculation (and an exaggeration) to state that she would be unable to sell the property. Markets adapt to whatever regulatory regime is in place. Rentals with tenants in situ are currently difficult to sell because the law makes it easy to kick out tenants, and therefore the presence of tenants indicates that they are overholding. That "dodgy tenant" signal would not apply if this law was passed.

Ok maybe she wouldn't have been unable but it would have been a lot more difficult. The vast majority of people want to buy a property to live in it. If there's a toss-up between a property where there is a tenant in-situ versus one which is vacant possession which are you going to go for as an owner-occupier.

It's nothing to do with dodgy tenants or anything like that but more that the only people who may be interested in buying the property are ones who want to be landlords rather than ones who want vacant position to live it in themselves. The majority of the latter, I would guess, do not want to be paying a mortgage on a house they just bought wanting to live in while they try to legally evict an in-situ tenant.

The_Conductor

witchgirl26 wrote: »

The majority of the latter, I would guess, do not want to be paying a mortgage on a house they just bought wanting to live in while they try to legally evict an in-situ tenant.

Which is why the housing agency suggested in its report that a discount to open market prices of 20% be considered as a threshold figure for triggering either an end of tenancy for sale- or for a landlord's own use. The 20% figure they have used, will become the actual discount expected by prospective purchasers of property- as the implications of even an overstaying tenant would be horrendous for someone who wished to purchase a property for their own use.

The housing agency did state that there was a presumption that property let for residential use would not be repurposed for owner-occupiers- which in all honesty- is not a viable presumption- as the proportion of sales to investors is continuing to fall (though still at a respectable enough 34% in the most recent figures).