Could the Government Seize Property

The_Conductor

Xterminator wrote: »

your rights remain unchanged. no new legislation is being drafted. The government & state bodies always had the right to use CPO in the public interest. This has not changed!!!

County councils have been CPOing properties for years. some more than others.

It wasn't just CPO I had in mind!

robp

Xterminator wrote: »

The_Conductor wrote: »

If we ever get supply up to 'normal' levels (allegedly 25k units per annum) are owners of property going to have their property rights restored?

.

your rights remain unchanged. no new legislation is being drafted. The government & state bodies always had the right to use CPO in the public interest. This has not changed!!!

County councils have been CPOing properties for years. some more than others.

The threat of CPOing individual houses not in the way of major instructure hasn't there previously so arguably there has been a de facto change, also eviction rules and the right to chose the price of the service like the vast majorities of other businesses can.

Xterminator

CPO-ing houses been done for years.

they have been cpo'ing individual houses for years. it just wasnt in the papers. the evidence is there - ive linked a paper earlier in this thread.
your wrong.

The_Conductor

Xterminator wrote: »

CPO-ing houses been done for years.

they have been cpo'ing individual houses for years. it just wasnt in the papers. the evidence is there - ive linked a paper earlier in this thread.
your wrong.

Its not been widespread- and in general it has been for purposes other than to provide residences to local authority housing schemes.
E.g. in the 10 years up to 2015- over 90% of all CPO'ed residential dwellings- were to facilitate road construction and/or widening or other infrastructure projects- and the properties were either demolished, or in a small number of often highly publicised cases- infilled with concrete and used as part of the foundations of projects.

The recent CPO'ing of residential dwellings to augment/supplement LA housing stocks- is not exclusively new- but is a vast move in a different direction for the scheme.

__..__

I registered to ask a question but i cant start a thread on it.
Im getting increasingly worried about this kind of action.
I believe that people who rent out their second properties are just getting steam rolled and that it is going to not only continue but get worse.
I have already been stuck with a rent thats 45% below the apartment two doors down. I didnt mind as i never raise the rent on a sitting tenant, but now i believe that it is going to effect the property value.
I also believe that very soon i wont even be able to sell my apartment if i dont get the tenant out now.
The tenant is finishing their part 4 in Dec 2018.
So im just wondering if anyone knows if its possible for me to give them their end of part 4 notice now? Or will giving it so early invalidate it.
The reason is that im hearing so many soundbites from the gov that I think they are going to enact more of the already crippling legislation soon and I would like to get out ahead of it. So I figure I need to give notice before any new legislation.

enricoh

The_Conductor wrote: »

From talking to a few census enumerators- particularly in a Dublin context- they had significant issues delivering census forms to numerous properties- for a variety of reasons- including gated communities, people refusing to answer the door, people denying any knowledge of the English language, people refusing to answer questions- and in a disquieting number of cases- all of which were reported to local Gardaí- census enumerators being threatened. Add into all of this- several different ethnicities who might have unhappiness dealing with officialdom- and you have a recipe for 'vacant properties'

I would attach a large degree of scepticism to CSO 'vacant property' numbers.

Fingal co. Council took a random sample of 70 houses that were vacant according to the cso statistics. Upon investigation only 15% iirc of the houses were unoccupied. Doubt any of the homeless quangos will be revising the 250000 empty houses figures though!

The_Conductor

enricoh wrote: »

Fingal co. Council took a random sample of 70 houses that were vacant according to the cso statistics. Upon investigation only 15% iirc of the houses were unoccupied. Doubt any of the homeless quangos will be revising the 250000 empty houses figures though!

The flipside of this coin is the CSO have rushed out a press release to deny they told Fingal Co. Co. which houses they had listed as vacant and which not- and they have no idea how Fingal came up with their figures- and invite them to a little meeting to discuss the methodology and sampling used............

Its turning into a pissing contest between them.

antoinolachtnai

The_Conductor wrote: »

The flipside of this coin is the CSO have rushed out a press release to deny they told Fingal Co. Co. which houses they had listed as vacant and which not- and they have no idea how Fingal came up with their figures- and invite them to a little meeting to discuss the methodology and sampling used............

Its turning into a pissing contest between them.

It's not a matter of a contest, it's just that CSO have a methodology and are standing over their figures, on the other hand, Fingal Co Co aren't.

The_Conductor

__..__ wrote: »

I registered to ask a question but i cant start a thread on it.
Im getting increasingly worried about this kind of action.
I believe that people who rent out their second properties are just getting steam rolled and that it is going to not only continue but get worse.

There are always kites being flown- particularly in the run-up to the budget- it doesn't mean that they're all going to be implemented- as it stands we now have the most regulated rental market in the EU (According to Eurostat)- while Threshold and socialist groups would like to imply that no-one has a right to profit from letting property- as property is a fundamental right- we're not a communist state, yet anyway...........

__..__ wrote: »

I have already been stuck with a rent thats 45% below the apartment two doors down. I didnt mind as i never raise the rent on a sitting tenant, but now i believe that it is going to effect the property value.

You're in the selfsame boat as a large number of landlords. It really is the case that the euphemism- about no good deed going unpunished- is the case with this........ Landlords who were decent and didn't increase the rent as the market rose- are actively being punished for it. The way things have gone- its entirely possible you'll never, ever, be legally entitled to do so. The RPZ legislation has a built-in 3 year lifespan- however, no-one seriously believes it won't be renewed at the end of the period.

If you are getting half as much rent as your next door neighbour- and the property is rent controlled- worse case scenario your property is worth half what your neighbour's is- unless its bought by an owner-occupier- and obviously this will have to be a non-first-time-buyer- as they'd loose their 20k lumpsum- if they bought a second hand property- and no investor is going to be interested in a rent controlled property- so realistically- its probably worth 60-70% the value of your neighbours property.

__..__ wrote: »

I also believe that very soon i wont even be able to sell my apartment if i dont get the tenant out now.
The tenant is finishing their part 4 in Dec 2018.

You'll be able to sell it- you just won't get market value for it.

__..__ wrote: »

So im just wondering if anyone knows if its possible for me to give them their end of part 4 notice now? Or will giving it so early invalidate it.

The legislation is phrased such that you have to give a *minimum* amount of notice- not a maximum. You can give as much notice as you like (at the moment)- however, if the legislation changes before the notice period is up- its possible you may be caught between the clauses in place in two different regs. Normally- legislation cannot be applied retrospectively- however, as many landlords have discovered- the little bit about new legislation not being retrospective- doesn't seem to count in the residential letting market...........

__..__ wrote: »

The reason is that im hearing so many soundbites from the gov that I think they are going to enact more of the already crippling legislation soon and I would like to get out ahead of it. So I figure I need to give notice before any new legislation.

Honestly- unless you're serious and intend to run your property as a business- first and foremost- which you've indicated is not the case- you really need to get out. I'd suggest giving the tenant their notice asap and selling- or indeed- offer to sell it to the tenant- which might be the best of both worlds for both of you. The legislative burden is extreme- and according to Eurostat- we already have the most regulated market in the EU from a legislative perspective- however, this has not stopped the interest groups in coming up with more and more brilliant ideas of how to shift more rights to tenants...........

Honestly- if I were in your position- I'd explore my options for selling- including approaching the current tenant in the first instance and asking if they are interested in purchasing................

The_Conductor

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It's not a matter of a contest, it's just that CSO have a methodology and are standing over their figures, on the other hand, Fingal Co Co aren't.

I know- believe you me- I know. I have to deal with both of them in a work context- I'm constantly banging my head off the table in frustration. I have a major in applied statistics myself.

GGTrek

__..__ wrote: »

I registered to ask a question but i cant start a thread on it.
Im getting increasingly worried about this kind of action.
I believe that people who rent out their second properties are just getting steam rolled and that it is going to not only continue but get worse.
I have already been stuck with a rent thats 45% below the apartment two doors down.  I didnt mind as i never raise the rent on a sitting tenant, but now i believe that it is going to effect the property value.  
I also believe that very soon i wont even be able to sell my apartment if i dont get the tenant out now.
The tenant is finishing their part 4 in Dec 2018.
So im just wondering if anyone knows if its possible for me to give them their end of part 4 notice now?   Or will giving it so early invalidate it.
The reason is that im hearing so many soundbites from the gov that I think they are going to enact more of the already crippling legislation soon and I would like to get out ahead of it.  So I figure I need to give notice before any new legislation.

I suggest you to read this recent thread:
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057782601
and serve promptly (before budget comes out) a Section 34(b) notice. Afterwards  you can start any discussion you want with the tenant (sale, rent to buy,  ...).

__..__

GGTrek wrote: »

I suggest you to read this recent thread:
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057782601
and serve promptly (before budget comes out) a Section 34(b) notice. Afterwards you can start any discussion you want with the tenant (sale, rent to buy, ...).

Its the trend and the mood towards property investors that has me running.
I dont want to rent at all anymore under the current conditions and the outlook, so I think I will give them notice and when they have moved out i'll probably do airbnb instead.

mrslancaster

The_Conductor wrote: »

The legislation is phrased such that you have to give a *minimum* amount of notice- not a maximum. You can give as much notice as you like (at the moment)- however, if the legislation changes before the notice period is up- its possible you may be caught between the clauses in place in two different regs. Normally- legislation cannot be applied retrospectively- however, as many landlords have discovered- the little bit about new legislation not being retrospective- doesn't seem to count in the residential letting market.........

Somewhat related question...

If a landlord does not want to extend a Part 4 tenancy, does that apply to a further Part 4 also?

GGTrek

mrslancaster wrote: »

The_Conductor wrote: »

The legislation is phrased such that you have to give a *minimum* amount of notice- not a maximum. You can give as much notice as you like (at the moment)- however, if the legislation changes before the notice period is up- its possible you may be caught between the clauses in place in two different regs. Normally- legislation cannot be applied retrospectively- however, as many landlords have discovered- the little bit about new legislation not being retrospective- doesn't seem to count in the residential letting market.........

Somewhat related question...

If a landlord does not want to extend a Part 4 tenancy, does that apply to a further Part 4 also?

Yes it does, you just have to give 224 days minimum notice instead of 112 days and respect the all the rules that were explained in this thread https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057782601 (please read the RTB tribunal order plus all the posts in the thread to get a full view of the complexity).

Why should the landlord give a minimum of 224 days (min notice for a tenancy lasting 8 years) and not 196 days (min notice for a tenancy lasting 7 years)? Well because the RTA has been written so badly that for any termination notice that is served on the 7th year that terminates after 8 years have passed (like it has to be for a section 34(b) notice) it is not clear at all from the RTA text and it has never been tested at the RTB tribunal if the minimum notice period should be the one for the 7 years or for the 8 years (the RTA does not say anywhere if the notice period applies to the tenancy length when the termination notice is served or when the termination notice period expires! The people writing it and most of its amendmends were really either incompetent or in bad faith or a mix of the two). Again why youd you risk it for a mere 28 days more on such a ridiculously long notice? Take the most conservative interpretation possible and add a few days to be on the safe side.

I am also very worried about the government effectively seizing a massive amount of properties by the backdor when I read this today:
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-why-the-government-is-about-to-spend-60k-studying-renters-36113763.html

Since I consider most of the Irish politicians to be scum, I always read their initiatives in the worst possible light. Why are they so interested now in knowing what renters want and the name of the research is particularly indicative of the pre-conceived aim of the research: "Tenure Choices: Aspirations, Expectations and Perspectives", like if the tenure of a lease is just a one sided tenant decision! (well the govvie and the media think it is). I am really worried about the abolition of section 34(b) and the govvie seizing all rented private properties by effectively providing indefinite tenure to any sitting tenant and at the same time leaving in place indefinite rent control (I do not believe for a second they will let rent controls expire on 24th of December 2019, that would be a very bad Christmas present to the sold out media). At which point I believe a full constitutional challenge to the socialist policies of this govvie will go ahead (not by the initiative of the cowards at the IPOA of course).

4ensic15

This use it or lose it strategy is typical of the confused thinking on the issue of the use of property. The rent caps are causing property to be used inefficiently. If rents were allowed to rise to their natural level tenants would have to pack in more tightly in order to afford their rent. This a the most efficient way to use existing property. CPO is a most unsuitable tool for resolving a short term housing shortage. It is most unlikely any council will actually try and carry out a CPO. They might threaten but that will be it.

__..__

GGTrek wrote: »

Yes it does, you just have to give 224 days minimum notice instead of 112 days and respect the all the rules that were explained in this thread https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057782601 (please read the RTB tribunal order plus all the posts in the thread to get a full view of the complexity).

Why should the landlord give a minimum of 224 days (min notice for a tenancy lasting 8 years) and not 196 days (min notice for a tenancy lasting 7 years)? Well because the RTA has been written so badly that for any termination notice that is served on the 7th year that terminates after 8 years have passed (like it has to be for a section 34(b) notice) it is not clear at all from the RTA text and it has never been tested at the RTB tribunal if the minimum notice period should be the one for the 7 years or for the 8 years (the RTA does not say anywhere if the notice period applies to the tenancy length when the termination notice is served or when the termination notice period expires! The people writing it and most of its amendmends were really either incompetent or in bad faith or a mix of the two). Again why youd you risk it for a mere 28 days more on such a ridiculously long notice? Take the most conservative interpretation possible and add a few days to be on the safe side.

I am also very worried about the government effectively seizing a massive amount of properties by the backdor when I read this today:
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-why-the-government-is-about-to-spend-60k-studying-renters-36113763.html

Since I consider most of the Irish politicians to be scum, I always read their initiatives in the worst possible light. Why are they so interested now in knowing what renters want and the name of the research is particularly indicative of the pre-conceived aim of the research: "Tenure Choices: Aspirations, Expectations and Perspectives", like if the tenure of a lease is just a one sided tenant decision! (well the govvie and the media think it is). I am really worried about the abolition of section 34(b) and the govvie seizing all rented private properties by effectively providing indefinite tenure to any sitting tenant and at the same time leaving in place indefinite rent control (I do not believe for a second they will let rent controls expire on 24th of December 2019, that would be a very bad Christmas present to the sold out media). At which point I believe a full constitutional challenge to the socialist policies of this govvie will go ahead (not by the initiative of the cowards at the IPOA of course).

Thanks.
When will this end? When they own my apartment while I pay all the bills?
Now I'm definitely sending notice.

The_Conductor

__..__ wrote: »

Thanks.
When will this end? When they own my apartment while I pay all the bills?
Now I'm definitely sending notice.

The proposal is that any tenant of >8 years will have an automatic right to buy a property in which they have had an unbroken tenancy, on local authority terms. That is- there would be a set discount to open market prices- which would be larger the longer a tenancy lasts for- up to a maximum of 50%. Threshold say this is a fair and reasonable reward for long term tenants- and a recognition of people's right to own property (Stephen Large).

I suspect this particular item on Threshold's wishlist- will not be followed through on.

Mrs Shuttleworth

__..__ wrote: »

Thanks.
When will this end? When they own my apartment while I pay all the bills?
Now I'm definitely sending notice.

Here's the tender notice for the "research project".

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase.asp?PID=118149&HL=0&PS=1&PP=transactions.asp

This may well be the catalyst to cause the rental supply drawbridge to be pulled up entirely.

um7y1h83ge06nx

It's amazing that the government doesn't realise that all this is just driving landlords out of the market.

Less rental properties means that people either need to buy property for themselves or the State will have to house them.

GGTrek

The_Conductor wrote: »

__..__ wrote: »

Thanks.
When will this end?  When they own my apartment while I pay all the bills?
Now I'm definitely sending notice.

The proposal is that any tenant of >8 years will have an automatic right to buy a property in which they have had an unbroken tenancy, on local authority terms. That is- there would be a set discount to open market prices- which would be larger the longer a tenancy lasts for- up to a maximum of 50%. Threshold say this is a fair and reasonable reward for long term tenants- and a recognition of people's right to own property (Stephen Large).

I suspect this particular item on Threshold's wishlist- will not be followed through on.

I did not find any mention of the 8 years right to own in the pre-budged submission of Threshold. They do wish to seize properties in the manner I described, their first priority is removing section 34(b) which is the last unfettered property right left to landlords still standing: https://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/20170822164450.pdf which they consider a "loophole" (it is unbelievable the amount of spin the communists at Threshold can put in their submissions):
"In  addition  to  calling  for  the  introduction  of  indefinite  tenancies,  Threshold  seeks  the  deletion  of  Section  34(b)  terminations  and  amendments  to  the  law  to  protect  the  position  of  tenants  where  properties are being sold or are being re-possessed by lenders."

"In addition the three year sunset clause in the RPZ legislation is not sufficient to assess the full effectiveness of the measures", i.e. rent controls become indefinite

The document above should be read in full to understand where the communists want to go and how screwed up the rental market will become if the govvie just listened to them. As in every communist state, the goods (housing) will become so scarce for new entrants that a huge black market for them will begin.
And how does a typical communist organization survive: of course through the massive use of public funds. https://www.threshold.ie/news/2015/11/10/thresholds-promise-to-our-supporters-1/

"In our 2014 audited accounts, we received an income of €1.3 million in statutory grants, while €479,000 was raised through donations from the public." The govvie is financing a private organization with part of the taxes I pay and the same organization uses this money to perform every possible action to screw me!