Ideal tenancy legislation

Samuel T. Cogley

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.

Unfurnished is one thing and I think a number of people want that. Can you store the two double beds because we want 4 singles is too onerous on the LL given 70% of us are one and two properties. As above we can't rent unfurnished at the moment so add that one to my list.

Samuel T. Cogley

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

Constitutional rights of the inviolability of the dwelling vs. private property rights is interesting. We place a double protection on the latter.

Quite agree on offsetting rental income and also tenants should be given relief on rental payments. There are far too many upsides in compliance and affordability.

Fian

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

This sounds sensible at first glance - since the full rent is hardly "profit" when the rent they are paying out needs to be funded from it.

However if you follow the logic - why should the landlord be able to set off the rent they are paying against this income but other people can't set off the rent they are paying against their (employment) income? Why would you differentiate between rental income and other income in this way?

Basically rent is an expense that people have to fund from after tax income, and either it could be set off against all income (too expensive!) or none.

.......

This post has been deleted.

PhoenixParker

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are dozens.
Your pcp doesn't get cancelled because the garage owner is losing money and wants the car back to sell.

The banks didn't get to call in all the mortgages on trackers.

Your insurance company doesn't cancel your contact because you got cancer.

People have very skewed perceptions about how businesses operate and the regulatory environment they operate in. Businesses operating on long term leasing/licensing/repeat transaction/relationship focused models are typically heavily regulated to prevent them baiting and switching customers and arbitrarily ending contracts.

If the business is truly insolvent the customer contracts are typically sold to another business at a significant loss. Customers are minimally affected or possibly have their contracts bought out.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr. Incognito

Changes.

1. The PRTB to be resourced properly and the power to issue eviction notices which are enforceable.

2. The right at Adjudication stage to dismiss vexatious claims by tenants subject to appeal to the High Court within 4 weeks on a point of law to prevent unlawful overholding.

3. Deposits to be held by the PRTB and to be awarded as part of any successful claims made to them. All deposits held to be invested and attract a rate of interest on repayment.

4. A Tenancy database for Landlords and Tenants that want to maintain a record of renting.

5. A property feedback system whereby tenants can rate properties and responsiveness of Landlord and Tenant etc.

6. An information leaflet to issue to both Landlord and Tenant when they register with the PRTB setting out their rights and obligations. Misinformation in the market is absolutely chronic.

7. The PRTB to be able to investigate breaches before leases are signed.

8. A damage redress scheme through the PRTB to compensation Landlords who lose propertie and have to refurb. The PRTB can then pursue the Tenant for the damage to be recouped once paid to the LL.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Lux23

I think I would be happy if landlords could understand that tenancy law was introduced to add balance to the uneven contractual relationships between tenants and landlords. Landlords hold a lot of power and that was why tenancy legislation was introduced. If a landlord is messed about by a tenant they won't lose their home but the other way around and the tenant could end up on the street. There might be some laws that appear to favour the tenant but that is because the landlord holds all the power.

Lux23

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah, you see this is the martyrdom of the landlord classes at work. They want everyone to treat them like legitimate businesses but without any regulation. They think they should be able to increase rent in line with demand, but when the market dips they think the government should give them tax breaks so they can keep their "business" going.

myshirt

In countries outside Ireland people look at a man with a big house or a man getting on in life and say 'You know Jimmy, some day I am going to be like that man'

In Ireland we look at that same man and say 'You know, Jimmy, some day I am going to get that b#stard'

We just culturally have it in for landlords, and this is what shapes our policy on it.

Lux23

That is ridiculous. If being a landlord was such a terrible thing in Ireland how come there are so many people willing to get into it?

jamesthepeach

Lux23 wrote: »

That is ridiculous. If being a landlord was such a terrible thing in Ireland how come there are so many people willing to get into it?

I think you'll find they are trying to get out of it. And then when they do and go to maybe Airbnb then people whinge and complain and then look for laws to stop landlords doing Airbnb so they go back to letting, because having forced them out of rental now they want to force them back in.

Lux23

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I think you'll find they are trying to get out of it. And then when they do and go to maybe Airbnb then people whinge and complain and then look for laws to stop landlords doing Airbnb so they go back to letting, because having forced them out of rental now they want to force them back in.

Why didn't the invest in something other than property in the first place? If it so bad why don't they sell up? If they did people like me might be able to buy their houses. And I have no problem with landlords doing Airbnb but they should be getting commercial planning etc.

jamesthepeach

Lux23 wrote: »

Why didn't the invest in something other than property in the first place? If it so bad why don't they sell up? If they did people like me might be able to buy their houses. And I have no problem with landlords doing Airbnb but they should be getting commercial planning etc.

They are selling up. And are probably doing just what you said and investing in other asset classes now that property is a no go.

Why would you need planning to rent using Airbnb. Might as well demand planning to rent apartments via long term rental too. It's the same thing. Ah I get it. People want the landlords to be forced to leave their properties on the long term rental market by planning regulations.

Graham

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really?

I can think of plenty of scenarios where businesses have signed contracts to supply good or services under terms which subsequently turned out to be loss-making. I can't think of any other scenario where this would be considered automatic grounds for breaking a contract that both parties had agreed to.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

Really?

I can think of plenty of scenarios where businesses have signed contracts to supply good or services under terms which subsequently turned out to be loss-making. I can't think of any other scenario where this would be considered automatic grounds for breaking a contract that both parties had agreed to.

So let both parties break the contract under the same rules, agreed on by the two parties at the outset, then. Same for both. That's all anyone is asking.

Graham

Mod: no more sweeping generalisations about landlords or tenants.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

So let both parties break the contract under the same rules, agreed on by the two parties at the outset, then. Same for both. That's all anyone is asking.

Absolutely. At the same time, should both parties not agree then the contract should stand.

.......

This post has been deleted.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely. At the same time, should both parties not agree then the contract should stand.

Fine if both parties are held equally accountable should they break it without agreement. A situation we are far from at the moment though.

Well actually it's moot at the moment as they don't even get to agree freely on the terms of the contract.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Graham

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's what I proposed. There's absolutely no point introducing one-sided legislation/rules/enforcement.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

That's what I proposed. There's absolutely no point introducing one-sided legislation/rules/enforcement.

Which is the big problem with what we have now. Also the fact that they change with the wind, and never for the better.

PhoenixParker

jamesthepeach wrote: »

So let both parties break the contract under the same rules, agreed on by the two parties at the outset, then. Same for both. That's all anyone is asking.

That's inconsistent with how the law typically handles contracts with an imbalance of power.

The problem is small time landlords in Ireland think of themselves and act like private individuals. The reality is what they're engaging in is significant and costly enough in a tenants life to treat landlords as a big business against whom the interests of private individuals (tenants) need significant consumer protection.

The law looks for fairness in contracts and that doesn't mean equal treatment for both parties it means balancing the power of the stronger party by giving more rights to the smaller party.

That's why your bank can't walk away from your mortgage but you can move to another bank (even if they've given you a whack of money for taking out the mortgage). It's why it's difficult for your employer to fire you but you can hand in your notice. It's why non disclosure agreements and non competes are typically not worth the paper they're printed on.

There is a significant public interest and benefit to society in people being able to plan their lives and finances based on knowing they have security of tenancy and within known bands rental costs. The law and the courts should protect that interest. If a tenant is performing their end of the contract they should have a right to stay. If they're not the court system should facilitate their rapid removal.

Business is well able to work within and around those parameters. It does in other countries and it can do here.

jamesthepeach

PhoenixParker wrote: »

That's inconsistent with how the law typically handles contracts with an imbalance of power.

The problem is small time landlords in Ireland think of themselves and act like private individuals. The reality is what they're engaging in is significant and costly enough in a tenants life to treat landlords as a big business against whom the interests of private individuals (tenants) need significant consumer protection.

The law looks for fairness in contracts and that doesn't mean equal treatment for both parties it means balancing the power of the stronger party by giving more rights to the smaller party.

That's why your bank can't walk away from your mortgage but you can move to another bank (even if they've given you a whack I'd money for taking out the mortgage). It's why it's difficult for your employer to fire you but you can hand in your notice. It's why non disclosure agreements and non competes are typically not worth the paper they're printed on.

There is a significant public interest and benefit to society in people being able to plan their lives and finances based on knowing they have security of tenancy and within known bands rental costs. The law and the courts should protect that interest.

Business is well able to work within and around those parameters. It does in other countries and it can do here.

Contracts mutually agreed, with mutually agreed penalty clauses , quickly and equally enforceable on both sides should they break down.

PhoenixParker

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Contracts mutually agreed with llmutually agreed penalty clauses , quickly and equally enforceable on both sides should they break down.

Again no. Legal principal is that contracts have to be fair. Granted it's consumer law but I believe the principal needs to be extended to tenancy laws.

The ability of a landlord to arbitrarily end a tenancy agreement is inherently unfair considering the cast amount of upset it can cause to a tenants life when things like creches, schools, job access and household budget are massively dependent on it.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/unfair_terms.html

Graham

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The law looks for fairness in contracts and that doesn't mean equal treatment for both parties it means balancing the power of the stronger party by giving more rights to the smaller party.

I don't think there's inherently unfair about expecting both parties to be held to a mutually agreed contract.

We're not talking about particularly onerous terms here. I'm suggesting both parties that enter a 1/2/3/5/10 year lease do so on the basis they will be held to it.

I'm further suggesting this is done at the same time as removing a landlords rights to end the tenancy under the existing part 4 rules which is good for tenants.

Again, I don't think any of this should be compulsory. Merely a new opt-in type of tenancy to run concurrently with the existing part 4 type tenancies.

jamesthepeach

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Again no. Legal principal is that contracts have to be fair. Granted it's consumer law but I believe the principal needs to be extended to tenancy laws.

The ability of a landlord to arbitrarily end a tenancy agreement is inherently unfair considering the cast amount of upset it can cause to a tenants life when things like creches, schools, job access and household budget are massively dependent on it.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/unfair_terms.html

Well there you have it. Unfair contracts for the owner of the property is what you are looking for. It's no wonder people are looking to go with short term let's and leave the sorry taste of unfair contracts to whoever is happy to swallow them.

But what I was suggesting was a.muty agreed end to the tenancy period at the outset. The contract could be renegotiated at that time and carried on for a mutually agreed further period, provided both sides are happy to. If either is not hapoy then they both just walk away as agreed at the outset.

PhoenixParker

Graham wrote: »

I don't think there's inherently unfair about expecting both parties to be held to a mutually agreed contract.

We're not talking about particularly onerous terms here. I'm suggesting both parties that enter a 1/2/3/5/10 year lease do so on the basis they will be held to it.

I'm further suggesting this is done at the same time as removing a landlords rights to end the tenancy under the existing part 4 rules which is good for tenants.

Again, I don't think any of this should be compulsory. Merely a new opt-in type of tenancy to run concurrently with the existing part 4 type tenancies.

It's inherently unfair if the termination clauses massively disadvantage one party. It's an established principal of consumer law.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/unfair_terms.html