Ideal tenancy legislation

Samuel T. Cogley

I'm fed up with seeing intractable threads on single issues so let's throw it out there. From your perspective what's the idea tenancy legislation?

For me it's striking a balance between the tenant and the LL. So I'd have much of whats in place including a 5% rental increase cap per year, however that would not continue between tenancies; even the same tenant if properly terminated after Part IV. If the property is removed from the market (own use etc.) and put back on the same rent must apply. Simply rented out to another tenant, the market rate, backed up by three ads applies.

Material change of use (substantial refurbishment) properly defined to include planning permission. AirBnB to require planning but to be liberally granted where there are few objections.

RTB to have 90 days (this to include a fast track court order system) to turnaround an eviction for non-payment of rent. Deposits to be held by the RTB. Deposits limited to 60 days, rent limited to first and last month. Let's cut the shenanigans completely and have a set rule for everyone. LL and tenant may agree a lower amount but all amounts must go into the scheme.

Credit rating/referencing to be affected by reimbursed damage and/or nonpayment of rent. RTB to arbitrate/control this. Landlords credit rating/referencing to be affected by non-repayment of deposits/discharging of damages awarded against them. If not credit referencing then a record for renting only tied to PPS number for both LL's and tenants, available as the reference - removes the need for bank statements etc.

Notice periods and termination reasons and procedures to remain the same inside of new time limits.

Inspections limited to 1 month, 3 months 6 months and then 6 monthly. Probation period on initial 6 months properly defined grounds for termination, but these should be liberal and numerous, for both parties.

PhoenixParker

On the tenants side:

1) Can't be kicked out for any reason except non payment of rent, serious nuisance to neighbours or severe damage of property.

2) Right to ask landlord to remove unwanted furniture.

3) Landlords would have very limited ability to increase rent for sitting tenants.

On the landlords side:

1) Swift court enforcement of eviction on non-payment of rents and other reasons for eviction.

2) Standard deposit of 3 months rent

3) Standard notice period of three months if tenants leaving

.......

This post has been deleted.

jamesthepeach

Simple agreement between two people to rent a property without outside interference.

Set price, duration, level of furnishing and terms of contract etc between you and have a lease drawn up. A real lease, with both parties bound by it.
Eg 1 bed apartment for €1000 pm for 3 years, 1 year, 5 years, whatever either side can commit to, with 3 months deposit.

If EITHER side breaks the agreement without the consent of the other party then court IMMEDIATELY. No rtb. Court, where it's a fair crack of the whip for both a parties, uunlike the rtb , and loser pays the costs of the winner.

None of this landlords held to account but tenants can break leases or do whatever they want with no repurcussions.

PhoenixParker

....... wrote: »

What about if the landlord needs use of the property or needs to sell it? I can't agree that forcing someone to stay a landlord in the face of insolvency or homelessness is a good idea!

Honestly no.
The property is the tenants home and that deserves to be protected. Why should a tenant who has acted in good faith and done nothing wrong be made homeless because a landlord f'd up?

If necessary property can be sold with a sitting tenant and if that affects the value then so be it.

Every type of business and investment comes with constraints depending on who you're doing business with. When you're engaged in providing something as serious and important as someone's home then not being able to terminate a contract with a customer acting in good faith is one of them.

jamesthepeach

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Honestly no.
The property is the tenants home and that deserves to be protected. Why should a tenant who has acted in good faith and done nothing wrong be made homeless because a landlord f'd up?

If necessary property can be sold with a sitting tenant and if that affects the value then so be it.

Every type of business and investment comes with constraints depending on who you're doing business with. When you're engaged in providing something as serious and important as someone's home then not being able to terminate a contract with a customer acting in good faith is one of them.

All well and good if it applies both ways. The tenant can take give notice either and must stay til the end of the contract they agreed at the start. So.if it a 5 years contract you agree to, then both parties are bound. If it doesn't suit yiz then do a one year contract. You can both either renew or adjust terms at the end for a new contract or both just walk away into the sunset never to see each other again .

ELM327

As both a tenant (currently) and a landlord, I would like to see the folowing:

Independant deposit management scheme (so the deposit sits with this body)
Better security of tenure for good tenants - eg if there is a 2 year period with no issue then you have an option that must be agreed between both parties of fixing tenancy for say 5 years)
Less infinite security of tenure for bad tenants / Easier to remove bad tenants, less of an "all onus on the landlord to wait 2 years with no rent" crap that we have now.(eg can be removed relatively easily after 12/24 months with a number of reported verifiable issues)
Reclassify rental income from PAYE eligible directly, to PAYE eligible only after mortgage is allowed as an expense as opposed to just part of mortgage interest only. (eg 1k rent vs 1k mortgage (75:25 capital:interest) should be an taxable income of 0, not 800 as under current rules)

.......

This post has been deleted.

PhoenixParker

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, that's a good idea long term. I think single property landlords should be encouraged to leave, they're a big part of the reason for the mess we're in. They inflated the market in the early noughties and they're typically amateurish ways not knowing the legalities of renting complicate life for tenants and the court system alike.

A move towards tightly regulated reits and housing association style organisations operating in the private market would solve many of our problems.

Let those who want to invest in property invest in a REIT.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry to backseat mod, but the point on eviction Phoenixparker made have been challenged and well explained by him, any chance we would move on and not get bogged down on a single issue?

On that note; furniture, I don't think that's something that needs to go in legislation. The tenant views the property and makes a decision on that basis.

Bob24

PhoenixParker wrote: »

3) Landlords would have very limited ability to increase rent for sitting tenants.

That's what we have with the RPZ rule and it is creating a multi-tier market whereby long term tenants and new tenants pay very different rents, and it also encourages landlords *not* to do any maintenance/improvement work for sitting tenants and to end their tenancy as soon as legally possible.

Mind you, I think rents are too high and need to be kept in check ... but I really don't think that approach works as it only protects some people temporarily and create undesirable side effects for everyone.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mirrorwall14

Use legislation or guidance to actively promote unfurnished blank slate rental like the continent.

Proper long term leases available with breakages only if mutually agreed by tenant and landlord.

I'm thinking of my final rental before we bought. It was semifurnished which was just super because we were able to spend the 5 years we were there gradually picking up stuff for the new house. Landlord increased the rent marginally each year and it stayed affordable. We broke lease after 5 years or so with the agreement of the landlord on a months notice. Everyone was happy. He had tenants who paid on time and kept the place well. We got a place with space for us to grow, affordable rent increases and a mutually agreed notice period at the end

Samuel T. Cogley

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Use legislation or guidance to actively promote unfurnished blank slate rental like the continent.

Proper long term leases available with breakages only if mutually agreed by tenant and landlord.

Such a sea change in the market would be welcome but a long term lease is more like twenty years rather than 5, you get 6 years under the current scheme. Are you suggesting something like 10 year plus tenancies come under a different rule set - I'm all for that.

mirrorwall14

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Such a sea change in the market would be welcome but a long term lease is more like twenty years rather than 5, you get 6 years under the current scheme. Are you suggesting something like 10 year plus tenancies come under a different rule set - I'm all for that.

Both to be honest! Even wanting to stay 5 years and looking for security made us very strange at the time we were looking :rolleyes:

jamesthepeach

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Such a sea change in the market would be welcome but a long term lease is more like twenty years rather than 5, you get 6 years under the current scheme. Are you suggesting something like 10 year plus tenancies come under a different rule set - I'm all for that.

A lease is nothing but a piece of paper to a tenant. If you sign a 5 year lease it should be a 5 year lease to both sides. Not just to one side.

mirrorwall14

jamesthepeach wrote: »

A lease is nothing but a piece of paper to a tenant. If you sign a 5 year lease it should be a 5 year lease to both sides. Not just to one side.

I do think there should be allowance for mutual agreement on a notice period but only on mutual agreement. If either reneges then yes, they should be brought to court when it comes to a fixed term lease

Samuel T. Cogley

jamesthepeach wrote: »

A lease is nothing but a piece of paper to a tenant. If you sign a 5 year lease it should be a 5 year lease to both sides. Not just to one side.

I've first year contract law rattling around in my head, I can't see that ever happening without a fundamental change in contract law. Just my 2cents. Perhaps some middle ground solution such as having to repaint/get the place ready for the next tenant at the end of a long term tenancy, whenever that might be?

I'd only like the LL to be able to recover for actual damage, no double dipping, but going back to the OP, that break would go in the tenants 'reference' from the RTB.

jamesthepeach

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I've first year contract law rattling around in my head, I can't see that ever happening without a fundamental change in contract law. Just my 2cents. Perhaps some middle ground solution such as having to repaint/get the place ready for the next tenant at the end of a long term tenancy, whenever that might be?

I'd only like the LL to be able to recover for actual damage, no double dipping, but going back to the OP, that break would go in the tenants 'reference' from the RTB.

I'd like if you sign a lease for two years you keep the place for two years. If you move that's up to you but you still.keep the llace, empty if you like, and pay the rent til the two years are up.
Basically I want the rules and punishment to apply equally to landlords and tenants.

If either doesn't like a two year lease agree on a one year. But don't complain if either side doesn't want a further one.

Bob24

jamesthepeach wrote: »

A lease is nothing but a piece of paper to a tenant. If you sign a 5 year lease it should be a 5 year lease to both sides. Not just to one side.

Don't agree there. Obviously a tenant and a landlord are not in the same situation. No tenant will commit to renting the same place for 5 years with no reasonably easy get out clause, it's just too long and too many potential life events might force you to move elsewhere. Whereas commiting to rent it out for that period as a landlord is a different story (of course with get out clauses as well be only limited to certain circonstances, for exemple if need the place for yourself or want to sell it).

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

RTB to have 90 days (this to include a fast track court order system) to turnaround an eviction for non-payment of rent. Deposits to be held by the RTB. Deposits limited to 60 days, rent limited to first and last month. Let's cut the shenanigans completely and have a set rule for everyone. LL and tenant may agree a lower amount but all amounts must go into the scheme.
.

I don't agree that there should be a cap on deposits, a LL should be able to ask what he wants and if a tenant agrees then that's up to them.

However if you are suggesting this I don't see why the two numbers above should not match. 90 day turn around to evict someone should mean a 3 month deposit is allowed so that a LL is covered for the 3 months of non payment while evicting.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

On the tenants side:

1) Can't be kicked out for any reason except non payment of rent, serious nuisance to neighbours or severe damage of property.

Absolutely no way, property owners already have too little rights to their property as things are. At tthe end of the day a tenant is a tenant not an owner and no way should they have the right to keep another persons property who needs it back. I'm sorry but if a tenant wants full control then go out and buy their own place.

jamesthepeach

Bob24 wrote: »

Don't agree there. Obviously a tenant and a landlord are not in the same situation. No tenant will commit to renting the same place for 5 years with no reasonably easy get out clause, it's just too long and too many potential life events might force you to move elsewhere. Whereas commiting to rent it out for that period as a landlord is a different story (of course with get out clauses as well be only limited to certain circonstances, for exemple if need the place for yourself or want to sell it).

Tenant can walk away from the lease without penalty. Landlord can't.

If we did have proper two way leases, legally enforceable, then both tenant and landlord agree on the term And both stick to it. You can write in enforceable penalty clauses for breaking a lease for each party, just like any other contract.

The idea is to make it fair and equally to both parties. Both benefit while it's working and both are held liable when they want out.

Fair means fair to both parties, not just one.

Bob24

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Tenant can walk away from the lease without lods. Landlord can't.

If we did have proper two way leases, legally enforcement then both tenant and landlord agree on the term And both stick to it. You can write in enforceable penalty clauses for breaking a lease for each party, just like any other contract.

The idea is to make it fair and equally to both parties. Both benefit while it's working and both are held liable when they want out.

Fair means fair to both parties, not just one.

Agreed on fair and enforceable terms of course.

But my point was that fair doesn't mean equal in every aspect.

Same with your employer: they might be forced to pay you redundancy if they end your contract, but you don't have to pay them anything if you are the one who decides to end it.

Is that equal? No.
Is that fair? Probably as both parties have a different role in the contractual relashionship.

Same thing applies to the minimum duration of a lease: the tenant and landlord don't necessarily have to commit to the same duration for it to be fair.

jamesthepeach

Bob24 wrote: »

Agreed on fair and enforceable terms of course.

But my point was that fair doesn't mean equal in every aspect.

Same with your employer: they might be forced to pay you redundancy if they end your contract, but you don't have to pay them anything if you are the one who decides to end it.

Is that equal? No.
Is that fair? Probably as both parties have a different role in the contractual relashionship.

Same thing applies to the minimum duration of a lease: the tenant and landlord don't necessarily have to commit to the same duration for it to be fair.

In my opinion they do. It's totally one sided as it is. That's why I won't go back into rental here. I was very happy with rental a couple.of years ago, but it's just getting worse as time goes on and interference gets worse. I think it's gone beyond fixing now.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry to backseat mod, but the point on eviction Phoenixparker made have been challenged and well explained by him, any chance we would move on and not get bogged down on a single issue?

On that note; furniture, I don't think that's something that needs to go in legislation. The tenant views the property and makes a decision on that basis.

Why can a tenant not have the option to the level of furnishing? There is not much variety of choice when tenants are forced to accept that 99% of properties are furnished.

It can be argued that it's a headache if a LL needs to move furniture in and out of their property depending on the requirements of a tenant.

The only solution I can think of is that long term leases (> 2 years) are rented unfurnished by default. This is less hassle for both parties in the long run.

Short term rentals (< 2 years) can be part furnished or fully furnished.

jamesthepeach

Aaliyah Juicy Pellet wrote: »

Why can a tenant not have the option to the level of furnishing? There is not much variety of choice when tenants are forced to accept that 99% of properties are furnished.

It can be argued that it's a headache if a LL needs to move furniture in and out of their property depending on the requirements of a tenant.

The only solution I can think of is that long term leases (> 2 years) are rented unfurnished by default. This is less hassle for both parties in the long run.

Short term rentals (< 2 years) can be part furnished or fully furnished.

Imo all properties should be rented unfurnished.

Current legislation doesn't allow that even if a landlord wanted to try it out to see how it goes
Sorry. If it took off then he would keep doing it and.others would follow.

Bob24

jamesthepeach wrote: »

In my opinion they do. It's totally one sided as it is. That's why I won't go back into rental here. I was very happy with rental a couple.of years ago, but it's just getting worse as time goes on and interference gets worse. I think it's gone beyond fixing now.

I'm both a tenant and a landlord, and i can definitely see why as a tenant you can't make a 5 years years commitment without fairly flexible breakout clauses, whereas as a landlord it is possible.

It doesn't mean full flexibility for tenants but at least if they commit to a multi year lease they should have the right to end it with let's say 3 or 6 months notice period so that they are not stuck but at the same time the landlord has time to get organised.

And it doesn't mean the landlord is fully stuck either, but there get-out options should be restricted and regulated only to specific cases such as the ones I mentioned (and of course the process to evict a bad payer should not take ages).

Graham

I'd like to see something like a guaranteed fixed term tenancy.

Defined from the outset as a tenancy of 1/2/3/5/10.... years with both parties obligated to complete the term and landlords guaranteed possession at the end of the term should they need it. Perhaps such tenancies could allow for annual rent reviews limited to inflation.

I'd like to see small but meaningful tax incentives for landlords to offer the above, maybe on a sliding scale increasing with the term of the tenancy offered.

Added to that it would be good to see the existing laws enforced promptly, i.e. a non-paying tenant should expect to be out of the property within 4 weeks of the end of the 28 days notice. This may have the added benefit of tempering the escalating deposits.

I think something like the above would benefit both landlords and tenants. A balance that has been sorely missing in recent times.

jamesthepeach

Bob24 wrote: »

I'm both a tenant and a landlord, and i can definitely see why as a tenant you can't make a 5 years years commitment without fairly flexible breakout clauses, whereas as a landlord it is possible.

It doesn't mean full flexibility for tenants but at least if they commit to a multi year lease they should have the right to end it with let's say 3 or 6 months notice period so that they are not stuck but at the same time the landlord has time to get organised.

And it doesn't mean the landlord is fully stuck either, but there get-out options should be restricted and regulated only to specific cases such as the ones I mentioned (and of course the process to evict a bad payer should not take ages).

I was both too until early this year.

If I wasn't sure how long I needed I could agree to a shorter lease. There would be penalty clauses for breaking the lease, like all other contracts. They could be something like leave 6 months early and you pay 30% of the remaining rent and give up the place. Or if the landlord wanted to break he pays you 30% of the remaining rent and he gets it back.

Fair and equally to both sides by agreement between two parties at the outset. No outside interference and what's agreed enforced swiftly and correctly if there is a disagreement.

jimmycrackcorm

PhoenixParker wrote:

Honestly no. The property is the tenants home and that deserves to be protected. Why should a tenant who has acted in good faith and done nothing wrong be made homeless because a landlord f'd up?

What if the property rented out actually belongs to a family who need to return to it our become homeless?

Given the constitutional property rights I don't see how the tenants can usurp this.

Incidentally legislation should allow tax relief for people who rent out their ppr against the rent they themselves pay elsewhere. I know a family who had to move back to their cramped apartment after renting a house because of the tax on rental income even though that rental income was basically going towards their own rent while they still paid their mortgage.

Graham

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What if the property rented out actually belongs to a family who need to return to it our become homeless?

IMO that should be a risk a landlord takes when they rent out a property.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Given the constitutional property rights I don't see how the tenants can usurp this.

It's not a case of usurping rights, I think it's entirely reasonable that a landlord foregoes some of their property rights when they choose to rent out a property.