Ideal tenancy legislation

Graham

PhoenixParker wrote: »

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

There is nothing in that link that suggests signing a legally binding contract for a defined period is unfair.

jamesthepeach

PhoenixParker wrote: »

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

They would not disadvantage either party though. It would be a mutually agreed and to the contract at the outset. Both sides have the full term.of the contract to out arrangements in place should the other side decide they want it to end as agreed.

PhoenixParker

Graham wrote: »

There is nothing in that link that suggests signing a legally binding contract for a defined period is unfair.

What would matter is the termination clauses and whether they favoured the landlord. A clause preventing the assignment of the lease for instance could be such a clause.

jamesthepeach

PhoenixParker wrote: »

What would matter is the termination clauses and whether they favoured the landlord. A clause preventing the assignment of the lease for instance could be such a clause.

And that would be unfair to the landlord. Unless by the same token he could reassign the tenants tenancy to another property that had nothing to do with him too.

I think I see where they problem here is.
It looks like your definition of equal is not the same as everyone else's.

What I would like is an equal contract in every way between two people, to end at agreed time and contain equal penalty clauses for early breaking.

Duncanwooly

jamesthepeach wrote: »

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.

James, Airbnb and long term rental are clearly not the same thing. Airbnb turns your property into a hotel, with short term guests. Long term rental provides homes for people over a period of more than 3 days.

Planning consent should be required because a house is built for use as a long term dwelling and its impact on the local environment assessed from the perspective (schools, roads, amenities).

jamesthepeach

Duncanwooly wrote: »

James, Airbnb and long term rental are clearly not the same thing. Airbnb turns your property into a hotel, with short term guests. Long term rental provides homes for people over a period of more than 3 days.

Planning consent should be required because a house is built for use as a long term dwelling and its impact on the local environment assessed from the perspective (schools, roads, amenities).

They aren't as different as you might think.
Airbnb might be more hands on, but still.look how many do it because it's easier than the alternative.

I've done both from both a landlord and a guest point of view.

Graham

PhoenixParker wrote: »

What would matter is the termination clauses and whether they favoured the landlord. A clause preventing the assignment of the lease for instance could be such a clause.

I don't see what's unfair about both sides being unable to terminate a time-based agreement.

I see nothing in any legislation that suggests contracts based on duration are inherently unfair or one sided.

Samuel T. Cogley

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

I think most of us understand that - so what are your suggestions for ideal legislation?

Graham

Mod: Let's not turn this into yet another AirBnB thread

dr.fuzzenstein

jamesthepeach wrote: »

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.

So if the tenant loses his job, finds another job somewhere else, has to move for family reasons, finds another partner and therefore has to move it's court?
That is thousands of utterly pointless lawsuits preprogrammed, not to mention the pointless expense for no good reason whatsoever.
That is a crackpot idea.
What you want to do? Force people to stay? Chain them to the bed? Throw them in the slammer? This is an utterly insane concept.
I have tenants on a standard contract here in Germany, the tenant simply lives here for as long as he wants, then he moves out. If s tenant moves out in under 5 years I would be disappointed at the short duration, but will simply re-advertise the place, no problem at the moment and if it is, life is tough. If I need the apartment for myself I declare Eigenbedarf (meaning I need it for myself), which I have done on the flat I'm currently in.
You cannot possibly except that people know what will happen in 5 or 10 years time.
Where will this end? Forcing people to keep their car? Their job? Their partner?
You cannot enforce someone else's life, that is an insane idea.

As for all the professional whingers, yes your property can be damaged. Yes you have to pay taxes. Yes you have to deal with difficult people and yes those people have a modicum if protection under Irish law.
If this is an unacceptable burden to you, then you need to find a way to make money in a way that doesn't involve any of the above. Too hot, the kitchen is not for you.

I do agree, taxes are too high in Ireland. The Irish government has no idea of the concept of taxes. Here it is to get a fair contribution from the earner, in Ireland its always "Jaysis, you're making' a power a money, we'll screw you to the wall now".

Samuel T. Cogley

Yes very good, but what's your solution to it rather than a rant at someone else's suggestion?

dr.fuzzenstein

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yes very good, but what's your solution to it rather than a rant at someone else's suggestion?

The solution is so short you must have skimmed past it when reading.
The landlord and tenant sign a contract that is simply open ended. The tenant is protect against me turfing him out for no good reason and me hiking the rent by a large percentage. If I need the place, I can declare Eigenbedarf.
It's funny how these ideas, which are being derided as draconian and unworkable in Ireland, have been part and parcel of letting in Germany for decades.

dr.fuzzenstein

The main differences (and I accept that) are that I can get a tenant out much easier here. I can get a Zwangsvollstreckung and that means the tenant will be forcefully removed by an authorised body.
Also, the taxes are a bit better here I believe.
Those are your biggest problems in Ireland, why don't you address them instead of fooling about with tweaking leases?

Graham

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The landlord and tenant sign a contract that is simply open ended. The tenant is protect against me turfing him out for no good reason and me hiking the rent by a large percentage. If I need the place, I can declare Eigenbedarf.

Sounds like a part 4 tenancy or a further part 4 tenancy in an RPZ.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

Sounds like a part 4 tenancy or a further part 4 tenancy in an RPZ.

Aside from the fact that some of it is being expressed with German words that are always amusing, that was might thoughts entirely. So I don't wish to put words in anyone's mouth but you (Dr. F) think it's all fine as it is - would that be a fair statement?

VonBeanie

Interesting thread......

First a few sweeping generalisations for everyone to have a go at.
* Homelessness should be the governments responsibility. If a tenancy ends, for whatever reason, repossession should be quick and easy and rehousing an evicted tenant should be the responsibility of the tenant/government, and not the LL.
* Parties should be free to agree whatever lease terms suits them, and not be over-ruled by legislation. If a 1 year lease suits, agree a 1 year lease. If a 10 year lease suits with agreed annual increases and agreed penalties for early termination, then agree that.

In terms of changes to the law
* The RTB should hold deposits
* Tenants should pay rent to the LL via the RTB. No question of what is paid and when it is paid. No tax evasion.
* RTB should have the right to collect fines/arears for both Landlord/tenants through deductions from rent payments, or by an arrangement with Revenue/Dept of Social Welfare.
* 3 months arears should be automatic grounds for eviction.
* RTB should be able to order an eviction without recourse to the courts.
* RTB should have a database of landlords and tenants that can be accessed prior to a lease being signed covering rent payment history, dispute history etc.

Unfortunately, this type of legal framework will never happen. Tenants who are overholding are not on the homeless stats, and there are no votes in providing a sensible environment where rogue landlords/tenants are genuinely held to account for their actions.

dr.fuzzenstein

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Aside from the fact that some of it is being expressed with German words that are always amusing, that was might thoughts entirely. So I don't wish to put words in anyone's mouth but you (Dr. F) think it's all fine as it is - would that be a fair statement?

The issues are obviously taxation and dealing with problem tenants.
Landlords seemingly can't deal with those issues directly, so react to taxation by raising prices, because the market can bear it, or just raising prices because they can.
The second issue must be cultural. Unwillingness to evict because of events dating back to the famine, renting seen as second class to owning and more of a short term thing.
So far I've seen 2 types of reaction, only offer short term lease and get new tenants every 6 months (oh the hassle, who does that to themselves? Only people who want extra work and expense) and now this idea of fixed term.
OK, fixed term might work for a year, maybe 2, but to base the entire rental market on it is like saying because a bicycle suits me, it has to suit everybody, including truckers.
To offer a 5 or 10 year fixed unbreakable contract with immediate court? Guess what, it will result in court. One size fits all doesn't.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry missed it again. Could you clarify what your ideal legislation sets out, in very broad terms?

dr.fuzzenstein

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry missed it again. Could you clarify what your ideal legislation sets out, in very broad terms?

I did not. I merely critiqued the suggestion of all rental contracts being fixed term and unbreakable. I'm sure there is scope in this thread for criticism without having to draw up a piece of legislation.

jamesthepeach

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So if the tenant loses his job, finds another job somewhere else, has to move for family reasons, finds another partner and therefore has to move it's court?
That is thousands of utterly pointless lawsuits preprogrammed, not to mention the pointless expense for no good reason whatsoever.
That is a crackpot idea.
What you want to do? Force people to stay? Chain them to the bed? Throw them in the slammer? This is an utterly insane concept.
I have tenants on a standard contract here in Germany, the tenant simply lives here for as long as he wants, then he moves out. If s tenant moves out in under 5 years I would be disappointed at the short duration, but will simply re-advertise the place, no problem at the moment and if it is, life is tough. If I need the apartment for myself I declare Eigenbedarf (meaning I need it for myself), which I have done on the flat I'm currently in.
You cannot possibly except that people know what will happen in 5 or 10 years time.
Where will this end? Forcing people to keep their car? Their job? Their partner?
You cannot enforce someone else's life, that is an insane idea.

As for all the professional whingers, yes your property can be damaged. Yes you have to pay taxes. Yes you have to deal with difficult people and yes those people have a modicum if protection under Irish law.
If this is an unacceptable burden to you, then you need to find a way to make money in a way that doesn't involve any of the above. Too hot, the kitchen is not for you.

I do agree, taxes are too high in Ireland. The Irish government has no idea of the concept of taxes. Here it is to get a fair contribution from the earner, in Ireland its always "Jaysis, you're making' a power a money, we'll screw you to the wall now".

Well I was just looking for equal status on a contract. Can't be simpler than that. You are really pushing the boat out with what ifs.
If you cant commit to a long contract, then do a shorter one that you can commit to. That goes for both sides. Happens every day with every service under the sun.

Contracts do breakdown. People do fall on hard times. But what's the point in having an equal contract if one side gets to ignore it at the others expense.
Either you want fair contracts or you don't.

dr.fuzzenstein

Fixed terms contracts are fine for some people, but they do not suit everyone.
Just because a bicycle suits you, doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one.
One should always be able to get another place to live or car or wife, you wouldn't want to be stuck with either one for 10 years and no way out.
If someone wants to do that and incur all the hassle, unforseen changes, court, expense, conflict and renegotiations (well, hopefully not if it's just short enough leases), by all means, I guess their life wasn't difficult and.complicated enough and they wanted some if that in their lives.
But to enshrine it in law for everyone? I just don't think it will suit everyone.

jamesthepeach

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Fixed terms contracts are fine for some people, but they do not suit everyone.
Just because a bicycle suits you, doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one.
One should always be able to get another place to live or car or wife, you wouldn't want to be stuck with either one for 10 years and no way out.
If someone wants to do that and incur all the hassle, unforseen changes, court, expense, conflict and renegotiations (well, hopefully not if it's just short enough leases), by all means, I guess their life wasn't difficult and.complicated enough and they wanted some if that in their lives.
But to enshrine it in law for everyone? I just don't think it will suit everyone.

So then you find someone who will accommodate your constraints on the contract. And if you cant commit 5 years you arrange 1 year or 6 months even.
Everything in a contract is negotiated at the outset.
I'm talking about having no law apart from the safety aspects, for renting. To allow two parties to negotiate the terms at the outset and then to have to stick to what they negotiated.
Not the current situation where one side gets all the protection and the other none. ND one side can walk away no matter what the rules are, but the other side can't.

The_Conductor

ELM327 wrote: »

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)

While I do hear what you're saying- what happens when you've paid down your capital- and effectively no longer have a mortgage? Your tax goes up to a possible 54.5%?

Rent is going to be taxed at some stage in the equation- suggesting that repayment of capital come out of the gross rental income- would be seen as a complete no-no.

Also- where is the person who prudentally paid down their mortgage- or inherited a property, to go?

The German approach whereby a property is allowed 2% of its market value as a 'cost' each year- wholly independent of any other vouched expenditure or costs- would seem to be fair- and to give the person who is financially prudent an incentive to keep going.

A lot of the ills in the sector last time round- were because of over-leveraging- and allowing interest as a cost- but no other meaningful deduction for someone who does pay down their debts- simply encourages a property owner to load up a rental property with as much debt as possible (hell, you'd be nuts not to).

A lot of the repossessions and evictions happening now- are by mortgage holders who are leveraging the recovering property market to offload the assets on which debt was secured. I'd argue that the regime needs to move on from this model.

So- full mortgage interest allowed as a cost on gross rental income- to a max of 2% of the market value of a property- and in the event of the mortgage interest coming to less than 2% (or not existing if the mortgage has been repaid)- the owner gets a flatrate 2% allowance towards either the mortgage interest and/or an allowance based on the market value of the property.

We need to move away from the model of loading debt onto rental properties.