proposed new notice periods for termination of tenancies

Fian

Less than 6 months 90 days
6 or more months but less than 1 year 90 days
1 year or more but less than 2 years 120 days
2 years or more but less than 3 years 120 days
3 years or more but less than 4 years 120 days
4 years or more but less than 5 years 120 days
5 years or more but less than 6 years 140 days
6 years or more but less than 7 years 168 days
7 years or more but less than 8 years 196 days
8 years or more 224 days

These periods will apply to terminations by landlords, under new legislation proposed by Roisin Shorthall and Catherine McGuinness T.D.s.

Fianna Fáil have indicated they will support the bill, so it is likely to be carried.

90 days in first year of tenancy, from the first day onwards. 224 days after 8 years.

This means if a landlord permits a Part IV tenancy to "roll over" the notice period will rise to 224 days, which to my mind means the rational thing for landlords to do is always to serve notice that they do not wish to enter into a new part IV tenancy.

The bill also proposes that the RTB make the previous rent and period available to tenants of a property, to enable monitoring of the RPZ limits. Though that would be administratively difficult I can't see any reason in principal why that would not be done. would probably be easier administratively to require landlord to provide that to tenant at commencement of legislation with a copy for tenant to forward to RTB, who could check aqainst their previous records.

(fb) The Board shall, within three months of the passing of this Act,
maintain particulars of rents charged for each residential property
registered with the Board, including:
(i) the address of the property;
(ii) the rent paid by the last tenant and the period this rent covers;
(iii) the name and PPS number of the landlord;
(iv) such other particulars that may be prescribed by regulations.
(fc) The Board shall, upon request, make the particulars referred to in
subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (fb) available for inspection
free of charge to new tenants of that property.”.

amcalester

Maintaining a database of existing rents was bound to happen eventually. Particularly when rents in RPZ were rising faster then 4% per year, landlords only have themselves to blame for that.

But, extending the notice periods will just encourage more landlords to sell up.

A landlord would be mad not end all tenancies at the end of the 4 or 6 year cycle.

Still nothing on speedier evictions either.

LuckyLloyd

Good solid changes that increase security of tenancy and disincentivise landlords from trying to end a tenancy prematurely to subsequently rent it out over the 4% limit.

I agree that legislation is also needed to simplify and expedite the eviction process in cases where it is warranted.

machalla

I assume a tenant will have to pay a minimum of 3 months rent to leave a tenancy early then based on these proposed changes?

the_syco

Fian wrote: »

These periods will apply to terminations by landlords, under new legislation proposed by Roisin Shorthall and Catherine McGuinness T.D.s.

What about terminations by the tenant?

Cash_Q

What can be done when a house is being sold that has had a tenant living there...tenant given their notice and statutory declaration all above board with solicitors having checked this...and the notice period elapses and the tenant refuses to leave? What can be done to get them out?

James 007

Yes, still no immediate evictions for tenants that have not paid their rents on time, and no jail sentences for tenants who go out of their way to wreck landlord houses, again seems to be a one sided affair again, with no landlord rights in place.

ted1

The only wa they should be allowed bring them in is to allow immediate eviction for none paying rent, anti social behaviour.

GingerLily

James 007 wrote: »

Yes, still no immediate evictions for tenants that have not paid their rents on time, and no jail sentences for tenants who go out of their way to wreck landlord houses, again seems to be a one sided affair again, with no landlord rights in place.

Does this affect evictions?

Are they not different to termination notices?

murphaph

GingerLily wrote: »

Does this affect evictions?

Are they not different to termination notices?

The problem is that the eviction process is far too slow. You can serve notice for rent arrears after 14 days but you then have a painfully slow system to work within to actually get them out.

Getting really sick of this one way street of tenant friendly legislation and nothing for landlords at all. Really nothing.

rgodard80a

amcalester wrote: »

But, extending the notice periods will just encourage more landlords to sell up.

+1

Or force landlords to require a minimum 3 month deposit.
So people would have to save up to rent, never mind to buy a house.

the_syco

GingerLily wrote: »

Does this affect evictions?

Are they not different to termination notices?

There is a shortage of places to rent, so they give landlords more reason not to be landlords.

VonBeanie

At some point, Ireland will need to come to terms with the fact that more tenant rights = less landlords = higher rents.

Every few weeks we get politicians grandstanding about tighter rent controls, longer notice periods, restrictions on deposits, lodging deposits with the RTB ........ and the next scheme to help the oppressed tenants.

When are we ever going to try something to encourage landlords to stay as landlords, or encourage new investors to become landlords?

The_Conductor

What I see happening as a result of this proposal- is an automatic notice from every single landlord in the country- as a Part IV period ends- that the landlord does not wish to renew the Part IV tenancy- and every single tenancy in the country becomes a 4-6-8-10 year tenancy (read whatever length they decide to increase a Part IV tenancy here).

They'll try to tighten up the get-out clause- where a landlord can invoke a familial need of the property- or wishes to sell the property- and they'll perhaps remove the lack of a reason from a Part IV in the first 6 months.......... which will simply drive any small scale landlords out of the market- and leave the market with the large scale companies- and turn it pretty much into apartments only.

Regardless of FF supporting the motion- I fully expect there to be behind-the-scenes representations made to the FF and FG politicians by the larger owners of properties- strongly against this suggestion. The politicians will be told its simply a step too far, and in the absence of some sort of a quid-pro-quo for landlords (possibly making evictions for over-holding automatic- thanks to some seriously dodgy advice from Threshold)- the political parties will pay a price (that being donations will evaporate).

The CGT exemptions for landlords- are all coming up- if ever landlords had a good reason to offload property- and given how frothy the market is- this is it.

The expression- be careful what you wish for- you just might get it- comes to mind- I seriously suspect the law of unintended consequences is going reverberate on this one...........

dr.fuzzenstein

Why are Irish landlords always obsessed with throwing your tenants out? You must sit at your desk, rubbing your hands and go "soon, soon!" with an evil grin in your face.
Some LLs on this forum have already said they will only do 6 months contract anymore. They must love stress, expense and paperwork.
Here in Germany I have no right to throw my tenants out unless I need the place for myself or if they have been misbehaving or not paying rent.
If there is no reason, I can write to him telling him to get out, he will laugh 5 minutes and throw my letter in the bin.
If I do have a reason, after 8 years I have to give him 9 months. Life is not a pony farm as the saying goes.
And I don't buy the "what if" argument. If he's been a good tenant for 5 years or more, he won't turn into a monster overnight.
I wouldn't dream of throwing my tenants out because there is a termination period, it doesn't make sense. If they're quiet and pay their rent on time, why on earth would I go out of my way to create hassle for myself? I'm glad I have a tenant who pays and doesn't hassle me.
I do agree there has to he a speedy process to get non paying or anti social tenants out, but one has nothing to do with the other.

edit:
Actually, if I give my tenants notice because I need the place for myself, if they haven't found anything suitable, I can't make them move.
Them's the rules.

Lumen

Employee rights are asymmetric too. Employees can quit on short notice while employers can terminate only after lengthy and costly procedures.

Some small business owners moan about this too.

The_Conductor

Dr. Fuzzenstein-

the system in Ireland is incomparable with the system in Germany.

First off- I honestly don't believe there are landlords out there akin to the picture you're depicting. Landlords- are landlords- to run a business- and should treat it as running a business. The relationship between landlords and tenants- should be a business relationship.

1. The Irish system is setup to protect the tenant at all costs- and to presume that the landlord is out to get them. To this end- even where a tenant has been escorted off a property for running a brothel by An Garda Síochána or arrested and given a 6 month custodial sentence for distributing drugs from the premises- they are given the benefit of the doubt- and even from prison or having been deported, from Nigeria (another case this week)- they are free to dispute an RTB tribunal finding in favour of a landlord. (these are all cases reported in the media in the last 8 weeks)

2. Even where a tenant decides to give up paying any rent- the 'expedited process' to evict them from a property can take up to 2 years. In cases where rent hasn't been paid- one case in November recommended a payment scheme with a landlord that would take 68 years to pay for damage caused to the property.

3. Unlike in Germany where a landlord can simply use the 2% rule for unvouched costs on a residential letting (which doubtless you're familiar with)- an Irish landlord has no similar costs.

4. Marginal tax for small scale Irish landlords- can be as high as 54%- whereas vulture funds- who now make up almost 55% of complaints from tenants to the RTB- pay nothing- as in- not a penny to the Irish exchequer.

5. Most small scale Irish landlords- genuinely bought property as either their retirement fund- or as somewhere to retire to- or for a family member. Its not hypothetical- and it would be fairest to look at the market as two distinct streams- the professional companies who come in and buy blocks of apartments etc- and the small scale landlords- who are falling in number by the day- with 3 or fewer properties.

6. There are new rules governing rental property coming in the whole time- most recently- it would appear that local authorities are desperately trying to retrospectively shoehorn current building codes into old buildings. This can have comic results- such as a ruling from Pembroke road before Christmas- where a landlord was brought to court by Dublin city council for neglecting to retrofit a Georgian property to modern building codes- who called a staff member from the same council to explain to the judge that the landlord had applied for planning permission to make the building changes requested- and had been refused permission (by the same council). I.e. the landlord is in the wrong. In that case- the landlord's HAP payment was stopped- as the building failed the HAP inspection. The tenant in question has taken a case against the landlord- for failing to implement the changes- despite the fact that there is a ruling on record against Dublin City Council on that particular case already- it has nothing to do with the RTB- who probably will take 6 months to hear the case- meanwhile the tenant is staying there, on the advice of yet another government funded organisation- not paying rent- and refusing to leave.

Honestly- the Irish system- would make quite a remarkable new TV series that would give Fr. Ted a run for his money.

No Irish landlord is sitting there trying to figure out ways of evicting their tenants- the most precious thing to any good landlord- is a good tenant. Its when this relationship sours (for whatever reason- but including because the government comes up with some new weird and wonderful dictat- that is wholly unenforceable- but a legal right for tenants- and its always something for the tenants- never anything for the landlord)- that things go pear shaped.

Even normal things that any business are entitled to as a cost (such as Local Property Tax- and council rates) are not allowable/deductible for landlords.

The Irish system- is actually quite funny- its so incredibly skewed- if you sit down and read the cases on thejournal.ie, courts.ie, rtb.ie etc- that are coming up on a weekly basis- they make quite incredible reading.

There are a few very simple changes- that could make a world of difference to tenant/landlord relationships in Ireland.

1. Move over to an unfurnished letting situation- where the tenant is handed a blank canvas at the beginning of a tenancy- freshly painted walls etc- and they can do with it as they please (other than structural changes of course)- on the explicit understanding it is handed back in an identical manner.

2. Regularise a deposit scheme- 2-3 months deposit- held by an independent body- and deposits only returned when expressly signed off on by both the tenant and landlord.

3. Regularise the tax system for landlords- a system akin to the German system- would be fairest- the current system- where small landlords pay up to 54% tax- while the largest landlords pay nothing at all- is grossly inequitable.

4. Change the structure of tenancies- long scale tenancies should be the norm- but if a tenant doesn't pay their rent, engages in antisocial behaviour or conducts illegal business from the property- there needs to be a clearcut method of removing them and terminating the tenancy with immediate effect. You now have tenants disputing the right of a landlord to end a tenancy after running a high footfall brothel from a residential apartment (which was raided by Gardai)- and the tenant has the upper hand. Like what?

5. The current presumption of guilt system- isn't working. The top 3 case categories at the RTB are currently- tenants overholding and not paying rent, tenants overholding and paying rent and in no. 3 tenants engaged in antisocial behaviour and/or illegal activity. We have two categories in the top 10- which are third party complaints against landlords by neighbours or other injured parties taking cases against landlords seeking retribution for the actions of tenants.

6. The Irish residential market has been deemed uninsurable by most insurance companies- the final company who offered a policy which included rent insurance- withdrew from the Irish market in December.

7. Most tenant complaints to the RTB now- feature cases against large owners of multiple units- the number of issues being reported against small scale landlords- is dwindling (as the number of small scale landlords dwindles).

Its a comic system- setup to protect tenants at pretty much any cost- regardless of whether they pay rent or not.

The bigger issue- than anything else- is a lack of supply- but it suits the Minister to tinker with the current system- because it detracts from failure to do anything about the supplyside issues.............

You seem to imagine the Irish landlord has some sort of a hatred of Irish tenants- I can't see how or why they would- its a business- its a symbiotic relationship- issues as a percentage of the number of tenancies in the country- are very probably lower than in many other countries (including Germany)- however, when issues do arise- there is a unique presumption of guilt in the Irish system- which quite simply- does not exist elsewhere.

There needs to be some sort of proportionality in the equation- there isn't.

LuckyLloyd

That’s quite the spiel.

We *know* that landlords have been using the reasons for part IV termination to get people out and relet at a new amount way in excess of a 4% increase. Politicians brought out legislation and it is utterly reasonable that they supplement same to eliminate common evasion measures.

Does anyone here object to rents being a matter of public record? Is so, why?

Yes, legislation is needed to make rightful evictions easier. But that doesn’t invalidate these proposals. Separate issues.

ted1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That’s quite the spiel.

We *know* that landlords have been using the reasons for part IV termination to get people out and relet at a new amount way in excess of a 4% increase. Politicians brought out legislation and it is utterly reasonable that they supplement same to eliminate common evasion measures.

Does anyone here object to rents being a matter of public record? Is so, why?

Yes, legislation is needed to make rightful evictions easier. But that doesn’t invalidate these proposals. Separate issues.

You can’t generalise all landlords.

They are not separate issues, they need to bring in a balance. It’s completely one sided, the government are using the private system to provide social housing.

The_Conductor

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We *know* that landlords have been using the reasons for part IV termination to get people out and relet at a new amount way in excess of a 4% increase. Politicians brought out legislation and it is utterly reasonable that they supplement same to eliminate common evasion measures.

If you *know* of a property being relet at levels in excess of the 4% limit in an RPZ- report it to the RTB, and let them take action against the offending landlord. *Knowing* something- and being a keyboard warrior on the internet- is one thing- actually reporting it- and having something done about it- is a different matter. If someone relets a property in excess of the 4% limit- they are breaking the law- and deserve to be reported- bitching and moaning on the internet isn't going to do anything for anyone- they need to be reported.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Does anyone here object to rents being a matter of public record? Is so, why?.

Of course not. I fully support a fully public database- that anyone could put an address in- and the current rent and the date of the last rent review should pop up. Its only by making the whole process as transparent as possible- that people can have faith in it. The current system- of nods, winks, innuendo- and bargaining under the table- is worthy of a Fr. Ted episode- and is shameful in nature- and brings the whole process into disrepute. There should be a front facing website- that anyone- anyone at all- can access.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yes, legislation is needed to make rightful evictions easier. But that doesn’t invalidate these proposals. Separate issues.

The current proposals are giving additional rights to tenants- and particularly in the case of smaller landlords- diminishing their ability to utilise the property other than in a long term tenancy. Perhaps the answer *is* to drive small landlords from the sector (which may be the unintended consequence of all of this)- however, heaping rights of this nature on tenants- without any quid-pro-quo for landlords- means there are a growing cohort of landlords out there- actively leaving property vacant- because its not worth the trouble of dealing with a tenancy (and the perception is that the 'trouble' aspect is increasing exponentially- regardless of the platitudes the Minister burbles).

The Student

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That’s quite the spiel.

We *know* that landlords have been using the reasons for part IV termination to get people out and relet at a new amount way in excess of a 4% increase. Politicians brought out legislation and it is utterly reasonable that they supplement same to eliminate common evasion measures.

Does anyone here object to rents being a matter of public record? Is so, why?

Yes, legislation is needed to make rightful evictions easier. But that doesn’t invalidate these proposals. Separate issues.

Legislation exists to deal with those landlords who abuse the system all that is needed is to enforce the legislation. One of the simplest ways to deal with this is to go back to the old system whereby if you were a tenant you were entitled to a tax credit equivaluent to the standard income tax rate against your rent. So if you paid €1000 in rent you got a tax credit of €200.

This was designed to catch those landlords who were not registered.

There is no political will to evict tenants, any politician who would suggest such a bill would be political suicide. Evictions don't win votes only over the last couple of days have Roisin Shortall brought a bill to Govt to increase the time limit of notice landlords need to give to ask tenants to leave.

I would be interested to know when was the last time legislation was introduced to actually aid the landlord, the only legislation political parties are interested in is for the tenants.

I think the Govt is playing a very dangerous game here. SCSI report today that for every 3 landlords leaving the market only 1 is entering. The majority of new rental properties coming on stream are from REITS etc. Once these companies have enough power they will start dictating to the Govt how the rental market should run.

dr.fuzzenstein

The_Conductor wrote: »

Dr. Fuzzenstein-

the system in Ireland is incomparable with the system in Germany.

First off- I honestly don't believe there are landlords out there akin to the picture you're depicting. Landlords- are landlords- to run a business- and should treat it as running a business. The relationship between landlords and tenants- should be a business relationship.

(some text removed for brevity)

Actually, I do agree with most of your points.
It is however true that as soon as new regs come in, A&P gets swamped with posts like

This means if a landlord permits a Part IV tenancy to "roll over" the notice period will rise to 224 days, which to my mind means the rational thing for landlords to do is always to serve notice that they do not wish to enter into a new part IV tenancy.

A landlord would be mad not end all tenancies at the end of the 4 or 6 year cycle.

And from yourself

What I see happening as a result of this proposal- is an automatic notice from every single landlord in the country- as a Part IV period ends-

So in this thread alone we see a pattern emerge, tenants gets longer notice period after x many years, toss them out. Do you deny writing the above?

I agree with many or most of the points you raised, but evicting a troublesome tenants has nothing to do with regular notice period. It's an entirely different process.
As for taxes, yes, it's a sh*t system in Ireland. Throwing yor tenants out won't change that
As for tenants rights in general, yes it's skewed. Still pointless to throw a perfectly good tenant out because of new notice periods.

I am actually glad a lot of those regs exist (here or in Germany) and I say this as a landlord.
Because what if my situation changes and I have to rent somewhwhere?
I want to be protected from 25% anual rent increases, 6 month deposits that the LL regards as bonus, "random" weekly inspections, rent demanded weekly in cash, buldings not up to scratch, but most of all and first and forermost:

If I ever had the misfortune to have to rent again, I want to feel that this is my gaff and that I am protected from a GFO my house letter by a landlord who thinks that maybe I am just being a bit too comfortable in his property.
In Germany as a tenant I actually can't be told to get out for no good reason. And even fopr a good reason, if I can't find anything else suitable, I also can't be turfed out. Still jealous?

Maybe the issue in Ireland is that there's a lot of banging the tables in pubs and internet fora going on, but just no banding together to apply some real pressure. That way the big players (who probably have more brown envelopes) have the government's ear, but maybe there isn't a real, effective organisation of smaller, Irish LLs to bend the ears of local TDs.
If LLs were as organised as the Vintners Federation, things would look very different I wager.

dennyk

Fian wrote: »

This means if a landlord permits a Part IV tenancy to "roll over" the notice period will rise to 224 days, which to my mind means the rational thing for landlords to do is always to serve notice that they do not wish to enter into a new part IV tenancy.

The notice period for 8+ years is already 224 days. In fact, the only notice periods this proposal changes are those from 6 months to 5 years (which currently ascend from 28 days to 112 days, increasing after each year of tenancy). The proposed notice periods from five years on are identical to the current law, and even the first completed Part IV tenancy (with the current six-year period) will put the tenant past that point, so there's no impact on Further Part IV tenancies from this change.

The_Conductor

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If LLs were as organised as the Vintners Federation, things would look very different I wager.

The Landlords did try to group together- and issued one or two dodgy press releases- before they got referred to the Competition Authority for anti-competitive behaviour.

Housing has a special place in people's hearts in Ireland- Ireland does not behave like any other country. Landlords will always be viewed in the worst possible manner- its part of our history- and our psyche. Keep in mind- what was the first thing we did when we kicked out the landlords from Ireland in the 19th and 20th century? We chopped down every wood we could get our hands on- as they were memories of hunting by the landed gentry. We have a historical obsession with owning property and sticking one to the landlord- come what may- and its an obsession that isn't going to change anytime soon. Yet- we also have an obsession with becoming a landlord and minting it- and have stories of all manner of blaguards who leveraged strings of houses off one another- and made millions- and these people are labelled 'entrepreneurs' and feted in the media..........

Well- people can't have it every which way- and the small scale landlord letting a house or two- are going the way of the dodo- at an increasing pace.

The proportion of property let by landlords who own 3 or fewer units- is falling year by year- and the number of properties let by companies who own >50 units- is leaping.

The old Land Commission in Ireland- which was setup in 1881- was the commission tasked with setting rent levels (and more latterly with ensuring fair and just farmland for farmers). It was only disbanded in 1984- which wasn't all that long ago. Much of our history- isn't very far in the past!

Fian

dennyk wrote: »

The notice period for 8+ years is already 224 days. In fact, the only notice periods this proposal changes are those from 6 months to 5 years (which currently ascend from 28 days to 112 days, increasing after each year of tenancy). The proposed notice periods from five years on are identical to the current law, and even the first completed Part IV tenancy (with the current six-year period) will put the tenant past that point, so there's no impact on Further Part IV tenancies from this change.

Thanks for that, I wasn't aware.

I guess the point still stands though that from a landlords point of view it makes sense to rotate tenants at the expiry of a part IV tenancy rather than roll it over. Especially at the end of an existing part IV tenancy that is 4 years in duration, I suppose less so at the expiration of the subsequent 6 year part IV.

Fian

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

<snip>

So in this thread alone we see a pattern emerge, tenants gets longer notice period after x many years, toss them out. Do you deny writing the above?
<snip>

I don't think you were directly addressing me, but you did reference some of my posts.

This is not a moral issue so much as a purely pragmatic one. Legislation should be framed in a way that expects people to react to it in a rational manner that maximises their self interest - it should be framed that way because broadly speaking people generally do.

At the moment there is less than no difficulty in re-letting an apartment in an RPZ, particularly if it happens that it was below market rent when the RPZ controls came in (and therefore remains below market rent). The only problem re-letting such a place is dealing with the volume of applicants for it. So it is predictable that many landlords will rotate tenants rather than accept longer notice periods before they can re-possess their property. This is especially so in circumstances where there has been a trend of legislation reducing landlords rights versus tenants, where many accidental landlords are moving back into (or close to) positive equity and where many landlords are considering an exit strategy so that they will need to re-possess in order to sell in the coming years.

Personally I think the RPZ legislation and the ongoing trend in legislation "moving the goalposts" will have the opposite effect to that intended and will ultimately exacerbate difficulties for tenants - by reducing the investment in the building of extra residential "buy to let" property, exacerbating supply constraints. That point has already been made earlier in the thread so I won't rehash it any further.

jimmycrackcorm

LuckyLloyd wrote:

We *know* that landlords have been using the reasons for part IV termination to get people out and relet at a new amount way in excess of a 4% increase. Politicians brought out legislation and it is utterly reasonable that they supplement same to eliminate common evasion measures.

We also *know* that tenants are overholding, not paying rent, destroying properties without any repercussions.

The Student wrote:

There is no political will to evict tenants, any politician who would suggest such a bill would be political suicide. Evictions don't win votes only over the last couple of days have Roisin Shortall brought a bill to Govt to increase the time limit of notice landlords need to give to ask tenants to leave.

There's no balance at all which is going to play havoc in the market. There's nothing inherently wrong with long notice periods except its unlikely to suit most of not all tenants who want to leave but can't afford to wait out the notice period.

LuckyLloyd

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

We also *know* that tenants are overholding, not paying rent, destroying properties without any repercussions.

And I would welcome legislation to expedite the eviction process in cases of over holding.

ted1

LuckyLloyd said:
Does anyone here object to rents being a matter of public record? Is so, why?.


I do, it’s a private transaction between two people, you don’t see garages publishing the price paid for cars, or hotels publishing prices actually paid , etc.

Browney7

Fian wrote: »

I don't think you were directly addressing me, but you did reference some of my posts.

This is not a moral issue so much as a purely pragmatic one. Legislation should be framed in a way that expects people to react to it in a rational manner that maximises their self interest - it should be framed that way because broadly speaking people generally do.

At the moment there is less than no difficulty in re-letting an apartment in an RPZ, particularly if it happens that it was below market rent when the RPZ controls came in (and therefore remains below market rent). The only problem re-letting such a place is dealing with the volume of applicants for it. So it is predictable that many landlords will rotate tenants rather than accept longer notice periods before they can re-possess their property. This is especially so in circumstances where there has been a trend of legislation reducing landlords rights versus tenants, where many accidental landlords are moving back into (or close to) positive equity and where many landlords are considering an exit strategy so that they will need to re-possess in order to sell in the coming years.

Personally I think the RPZ legislation and the ongoing trend in legislation "moving the goalposts" will have the opposite effect to that intended and will ultimately exacerbate difficulties for tenants - by reducing the investment in the building of extra residential "buy to let" property, exacerbating supply constraints. That point has already been made earlier in the thread so I won't rehash it any further.

But does this not result in a risk of getting a delinquent tenant that will cause gas explosions, holes in walls, running brothels or drug operations etc? Such tenants seem to be everywhere a landlord looks judging by this forum? If you have a great tenant in situ, why rock the boat? Or are the risks of getting delinquent tenants not what they are made out to be?

dr.fuzzenstein

Fian wrote: »

I don't think you were directly addressing me, but you did reference some of my posts.

This is not a moral issue so much as a purely pragmatic one. Legislation should be framed in a way that expects people to react to it in a rational manner that maximises their self interest - it should be framed that way because broadly speaking people generally do.

At the moment there is less than no difficulty in re-letting an apartment in an RPZ, particularly if it happens that it was below market rent when the RPZ controls came in (and therefore remains below market rent). The only problem re-letting such a place is dealing with the volume of applicants for it. So it is predictable that many landlords will rotate tenants rather than accept longer notice periods before they can re-possess their property. This is especially so in circumstances where there has been a trend of legislation reducing landlords rights versus tenants, where many accidental landlords are moving back into (or close to) positive equity and where many landlords are considering an exit strategy so that they will need to re-possess in order to sell in the coming years.

Personally I think the RPZ legislation and the ongoing trend in legislation "moving the goalposts" will have the opposite effect to that intended and will ultimately exacerbate difficulties for tenants - by reducing the investment in the building of extra residential "buy to let" property, exacerbating supply constraints. That point has already been made earlier in the thread so I won't rehash it any further.

That is one loophole in the law that needs to be fixed quick.
I am glad I live in a country where A: you can't toss a tenant because you want to deny their rights and B: because you cannot tell a tenant to leave for no good reason. And "I don't want you having more rights" is not a good enough reason.
Telling a tenant to get out purely for reason of denying them their rights should not only be impossible, it should be illegal. It should have the same legal and moral standing as a sign that says "no blacks".
It is a massive, massive issue in the Irish rental market, this "don't get too comfy there Bucko, in 4 years your ass is on the street".

And don't forget, the new notice periods are nothing outrageous or insane in a European context, it is simply moving in line with the rest of Europe.
Of course nobody is forced to be a LL.
Yes, I do agree with eviction and tax being not ideal, but this has nothing to do with notice periods (broken record alert)

The_Conductor wrote: »

The Landlords did try to group together- and issued one or two dodgy press releases- before they got referred to the Competition Authority for anti-competitive behaviour.

I think I remember something along those lines but can't find a link.
There is an Irish landlord's organisation, I think it was illegal for them to organise concerted actions by landlords that would circumvent or obstruct legislation.
But I can't find anything that says a landlord's organisation is not legal.

The problem is the basic attitude when it comes to ruls in Ireland.
In Germany we think rules are great, because they tell everyone how to behave, what their rights are nd what their obligations are. Everyone knows what they're at and there's no nasty suprises.
In Ireland rules are viewed as something that has been designed to make things difficult, expensive and timeconsuming, because you can't just give everyone free reign and therefore need "something" to slow everything down.
Therefore the people view the rules as something that is in their way as an obstacle that needs to be overcome, circumvented or defeated.
And they would not be entirely incorrect, because the people who design the rules are often clueless as to what they want to achieve or go about it the wrong way.
Because the attitude is "I do exactly what is on my desk and how this affects the next guy is not my problem".
So yes, I agree there is a fundamental problem in Ireland.
And instead of solving it, everyone is just engaging in passive-aggressive tacticts in order to push the other guy but forget he doesn't care or will just become more obstinate.