proposed new notice periods for termination of tenancies

LuckyLloyd

ted1 wrote: »

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.

And presumably you object to the property price register too?

GGTrek

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

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.

And presumably you object to the property price register too?

I do. In other countries, the list is not published on the web. Interested person has to pay a small fee to see the actual prices paid and the owners title which removes snoopers (plenty of them everywhere) and guarantees some privacy to the actual owners.
Again your ideas are repeatedly very socialist/communist ones, where a man/woman has to be transparent and the state is all powerful and has all rights about the private individual behaviour and private life: these things never end well! I shall add a proper post about this s..y proposal from the jokers at the Oireachtas. The current notices proposal is in conflict with another part of the RTA 2004 (especially in the first 6 months) and it would be very easy to defeat in an Irish court of law: as usual the Irish TDs are so incompetent that they propose bills without even proper legal advice!!! No wonder senior judges have complained repeatedly about the drafting of the RTA.

murphaph

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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.

And in 2015 the German government made it easier to remove rent nomads. Germany also allows up to 20% rent increases in a 3 year window (averaging 6.3% a year compared to 4% in Ireland) and allows even more if the property has been refurbished to improve energy efficiency.

The so called rent brake in some German cities does not apply to furnished properties.

I don't mind a well regulated rental sector but it's all been a one way street in Ireland and it's just not fair.

hognef

GGTrek wrote: »

I do. In other countries, the list is not published on the web. Interested person has to pay a small fee to see the actual prices paid and the owners title which removes snoopers

Well, in *some* countries they not only publish the list on the web, they make it fully searchable, listing names of buyers and sellers and the full history of transactions for the property, e.g.:

https://siste.eiendomspriser.no/?id=0301002150201000000370000

GGTrek

I want to thank the OP for having raised this issue. My readings of the very sad Oireachtas debates on housing stopped for the Christmas/New Year break, but the legislative fury and stupidity of the Irish TDs knows no bounds. Let's go straight to the source of the proposal instead of using a third rate biased Irish media outlet who is just the loudspeaker of TD Róisín Shortall.

This is the proposal: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37597&&CatID=59

Below the debate on the proposal.
Introduction by the named TD: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2018011700019?opendocument#R01100

Actual debate of the "learned" :D TDs:  http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2018012300046?opendocument#TT00300

Please be aware in the first link about the all important govvie comment:
An Ceann Comhairle:   Is the Bill opposed?
Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government (Deputy Eoghan Murphy):   No.
This means that this bill will pass, whatever the comments made in this group. As previous posts said, the govvie has to show to the biased media that they are supporting the poor tenants whatever the medium term consequences of their irresponsible actions.

First of all the proposal only changes the notice periods for landlords and not for breach of obligations (section 66 does not apply in such cases), not for tenants.

Let's discuss the fact that why the proposal as it stands will not pass any Irish court of law examination:
Section 66 of  the Principal  Act   (as amended  by section 31 of  the  Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015) is amended by substituting the following Table for
Table 1: “Table 1 Termination by Landlord
Duration of Tenancy    Notice Period
Less than 6 months      90 days

Let's read another important section of the RTA 2004 that the "learned" :D:D TDs obviously ignore (just above section 66!!!), Section 65(4):
65.—(1) This Chapter states the period of notice to be given by a notice of termination.
(4) If the duration of the tenancy concerned is less than 6 months, a period of notice of more than 70 days may not be given in respect of it.

Now, how can Ms Róisín Shortall think that she can square the two sections above which are clearly in conflict. The proposal was obviously not reviewed by any legal adviser (not even experienced) and coming out of the .... of incompetent and amateurish TDs who have't got a clue about Tenancy Law and rental market and are just dangerously playing without paying the consequences on their thick skulls!!!

Let's go to the other b..t proposal of Ms Shortall:
Section 9 of the Act is amended by substituting “€15,000” for “€3,000” in subsection (1).

Let's read the original Section 9:
"9.—(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both."
Does she not realize that this section applies equally to tenants? Of course the biased adjudicators at the RTB (which is a government agency BTW) will try their best not to apply it to tenants.

Finally the passing of the old rent to the new tenant, they are just adding a further function to the RTB within 3 months of the passing of the legislation (very optimistic knowing how inefficient the RTB is:D:D):
Section 151 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following after paragraph (f) of subsection (1):
“(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.”
Now on the surface it looks all nice and dandy except for the fact that the RTB database is all over the place with lots of outdated data and the RTB has no capacity at all to fix this database in the short time frame of  months. Do people in this forum know why after two years there is not a compulsory tenancy deposit scheme in Ireland which was mandated by the RTA 2015? Because the RTB has no capacity to handle such a scheme!
I shall explain to some of the thick ideological posters in this thread that even if the RTB was to finally sort out its database, the data inputted into it is voluntary. The only way to verify that the old tenancy data is through verifying written tenancy agreements for all the 300k (or more) tenancies existing in Ireland or having every single tenant compulsory input their rent data and an RTB officer verify it against the tenancy agreement the tenant signed (good luck with that: many are not even willing to register for utilities!)

Finally, shouldn't the RPZ have an expiry date of 23Dec2019? Why then section 3 of this proposal has no expiry date? Maybe the govvie and the TDs have second intentions?

Finally to the ideological socialist dr.fuzzenstein: you have no knowledge of how unbalanced Irish tenacy law and its practical application are and the fact that tenants are almost held to no account at all by the Irish authorities. So please avoid making comments about matters you know very little about and investigate first! You have absolutely no idea how high the standard of proof is to kick out an anti-social tenant or a tenant that is repeatedly breaching his tenancy agreement, or the fact that tenants do not have to respect fixed term agreements (we see it very often in this forum). I have explained in detail why I do not grant part 4 rights (free for all rights they should be called) to my tenants, but your ideological socialist lenses are obfuscating your view: it is not with simple patches like this half-baked stupid proposal that the govvie and TDs will improve the Irish rental situation. They would need an organic and long debated discussion with all the parties involved (landlords included). This proposal is (as usual) political gesturing good for votes and to publish in the media! It took two years of debate and several jurists were involved when they approved the RTA 2004, now the incompetent TDs pretend to solve massive issues in just a few days.

I am seriously thinking about copying and pasting this post and emailing it to Ms Shortall, just for pleasure of making fun of her incompetence.

GGTrek

hognef wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

I do. In other countries, the list is not published on the web. Interested person has to pay a small fee to see the actual prices paid and the owners title which removes snoopers

Well, in *some* countries they not only publish the list on the web, they make it fully searchable, listing names of buyers and sellers and the full history of transactions for the property, e.g.:

https://siste.eiendomspriser.no/?id=0301002150201000000370000

You are pointing to socialist nordic country Norway: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/the-biggest-housing-bubble-of-them-all-might-be-norwegian
if that is the model the Irish govvie wants to go, they should say so, make a proposal to change the constitution and go to a referendum instead of tinkering on the sides.

Nordic countries Sweden and Norway are the best example on how not to manage the housing and the rental market.

murphaph

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Does anyone here object to rents being a matter of public record?

In Denmark you can go online and find out what your neighbours earn. Would you be ok with that? I wouldn't.

hognef

GGTrek wrote: »

You are pointing to socialist nordic country Norway: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/the-biggest-housing-bubble-of-them-all-might-be-norwegian
if that is the model the Irish govvie wants to go, they should say so, make a proposal to change the constitution and go to a referendum instead of tinkering on the sides.

Nordic countries Sweden and Norway are the best example on how not to manage the housing and the rental market.

That may or may not be true, but it's not what I commented on. I honestly don't think making prices publicly available has much to do with "managing the property market".

GGTrek

hognef wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

You are pointing to socialist nordic country Norway: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/the-biggest-housing-bubble-of-them-all-might-be-norwegian
if that is the model the Irish govvie wants to go, they should say so, make a proposal to change the constitution and go to a referendum instead of tinkering on the sides.

Nordic countries Sweden and Norway are the best example on how not to manage the housing and the rental market.

That may or may not be true, but it's not what I commented on. I honestly don't think making prices publicly available has much to do with "managing the property market".

It has everything to do in being socialist and its consequences!

hognef

GGTrek wrote: »

It has everything to do in being socialist and its consequences!

I simply pointed out that not all countries choose to make this kind of information impossible to obtain, thereby proving your initial statement wrong.

Edit: removing question, as I really can't be bothered.

Klinkhammer

murphaph wrote: »

In Denmark you can go online and find out what your neighbours earn. Would you be ok with that? I wouldn't.

Its actually a great system. It completely cuts out the nixer culture and also ensures that everybody is paying what they are supposed to.

Fian

murphaph wrote: »

In Denmark you can go online and find out what your neighbours earn. Would you be ok with that? I wouldn't.

I would. I think it would do wonders for tax evasion as well, would be helpful to publish tax returns.

For most public servants in Ireland by the way this is already the case - if you know what your neighbour's (public sector) job is.

LuckyLloyd

Transparency and information in the public domain can only be a positive thing.

koheim

GGTrek wrote: »

hognef wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

I do. In other countries, the list is not published on the web. Interested person has to pay a small fee to see the actual prices paid and the owners title which removes snoopers

Well, in *some* countries they not only publish the list on the web, they make it fully searchable, listing names of buyers and sellers and the full history of transactions for the property, e.g.:

https://siste.eiendomspriser.no/?id=0301002150201000000370000

You are pointing to socialist nordic country Norway: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/the-biggest-housing-bubble-of-them-all-might-be-norwegian
if that is the model the Irish govvie wants to go, they should say so, make a proposal to change the constitution and go to a referendum instead of tinkering on the sides.

Nordic countries Sweden and Norway are the best example on how not to manage the housing and the rental market.

So Norway and Sweden are worse than Ireland on how to manage the housing and rental sector?....I think you will find that it is not really comparable.
According to your bloomberg link, Irish housing market is in a super place, no red lights there, but what do they know. Just not credible. 
I do find it amazing that you do not want transaction and history to be transparent, why is this? In America this information is also available, for free, like in Norway.

Samuel T. Cogley

koheim wrote: »

So Norway and Sweden are worse than Ireland on how to manage the housing and rental sector?....I think you will find that it is not really comparable.
According to your bloomberg link, Irish housing market is in a super place, no red lights there, but what do they know. Just not credible.
I do find it amazing that you do not want transaction and history to be transparent, why is this? In America this information is also available, for free, like in Norway.

I'm up for the free information bit - as long as tenant's credit histories and previous rental references are also available.

koheim

Sure, this is already in place for tenants. Landlords are free to ask for both reference and bank statements, isn’t this the norm?

the_syco

koheim wrote: »

Sure, this is already in place for tenants. Landlords are free to ask for both reference and bank statements, isn’t this the norm?

Easily falsified.

ted1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

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.

And presumably you object to the property price register too?

I do actually, and I can’t see how it got passed the data protection commissioner.

If Dunnes stores don’t have to publish their accounts, why should people who sell private property.

ted1

hognef wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

I do. In other countries, the list is not published on the web. Interested person has to pay a small fee to see the actual prices paid and the owners title which removes snoopers

Well, in *some* countries they not only publish the list on the web, they make it fully searchable, listing names of buyers and sellers and the full history of transactions for the property, e.g.:

https://siste.eiendomspriser.no/?id=0301002150201000000370000

I’d say out indigenous nomadic tribal folk would love for us to do that.

Could you imagine what the crime rate would be if you could google. Elderly widows who have recently down sized and have lots of spare money.

Wheres Me Jumper?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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?

I agree with you. So a LL now as a tenant who feels more secure in his property, and now feels like staying there for 5, 6,7 maybe even 10 years. For the life of me I cannot see why any LL would have a problem with that, .......so long as said tenant continues to be a proper tenant and pay his rent, where is the problem?
Over a 10 year period that is a serious transfer of wealth given todays' rent levels. Why would any sane LL feel the need or desire to churn his tenants? The hassle, disruption, inconvenience. Irish LLs must have a masochistic streak.
Personally I feel it has much to do with cultural and psychological issues than intelligent business/economic sense.

jimmycrackcorm

Nelly76 wrote:

2008 ; Property purchased jointly with ex partner. 2009 ; I left property due to abusive relationship. (Several failed Transfer of Equity requests). 2013 ; Property fell into arrears. Got cancer. 2014 ; I was informed of arrears & met with Bank official in person. Advised her I had discovered the other mortgage holder was planning on leaving the country & requested they reposes the property or take action. Consequently, ex partner skipped the country. 2015 ; Gained access to vacant property and agreed a Voluntary sale of property. Bank refused to enter discussions re; agreement on balances owed at this point. Remission from cancer. 2016, April ; Voluntary Sale closed 2016 ; Attempted to negotiate the neg equity, balance owed. - September ; Entered into a Personal Insolvency agreement ; Failed 2017; (Some of many) Discussions with the Bank below ; 25/1/17 ;I made an offer of over 10k which is 10% of bal owed & all i could afford. That balance incidentally is interest upon interest upon interest...you get the jist. 30/1/17 ; Spoke with a bank official on the phone who verbally advised bank will not be actively chasing me for the monies owed. But as I am looking for closure/clear credit rating etc..They have failed to give me this in writing & Arrears Statements continue to arrive every 3 months by post. 14/2/17 ; Letter sent requesting update ; No reply. 16/5/17 ; Letter sent requesting update ; No reply. 23/5/17; Asset & Liability Affidavit request. Completed & returned. 7/7/17 ; SFA request. Completed & returned. Bank stopped taking my daily then weekly calls after that, giving me new contact names for my case every time i got the switch board, and their numbers would land at someone else's mailbox. I never ever get a call back....They have disengaged with me not the other way around !!!

dar100 wrote:

Worked Example: A = € 100,000 the amount of the premature payment or balance converted to another rate U = 2 years (24 months) on basis you fixed for 5 years (60 months) and are now breaking out of fixed rate after 3 years (36 months) D = 2% on the basis you fixed at a 5 year rate of 5.25% and the fixed rate for the unexpired period (i.e. 24 months) is 3.25%. So, applying the formula A x U x € 100,000 x 24/12 x 2% = € 4,000

ted1 wrote:

If Dunnes stores don’t have to publish their accounts, why should people who sell private property.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote:

transfer of wealth given todays' rent levels. Why would any sane LL feel the need or desire to churn his tenants? .

Nobody churns tenants precisely because of the reasons you state. But what happens when rental demands fall as they did just past 08, when landlords dropped rents as tenants churned then?

Samuel T. Cogley

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Nobody churns tenants precisely because of the reasons you state. But what happens when rental demands fall as they did just past 08, when landlords dropped rents as tenants churned then?

Well the government will only allow them to fall at 4% per year of course.