Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Eviction letter - Clause help
Options
Comments
-
i have rented 3 units on provisional 6 month terms to 2 companies directly all who have foreign employees on contracts i have to provide cleaning but its being very successful such is the demand i source through social media
Staff staying in the accommodation are in effect licensees
Thats what i thought but i heard that the RTB said companies or councils or housing associations who take properties from a LL basically only act as a middle-man and the RTA rules still apply to the LL and the tenant.
The middle-man is just sourcing the tenant.
Does the cleaning service change it? Not being smart here - just looking for information, it's not very clear from RTB.0 -
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html
6 month...
Besides that type of business has high level of change of tenant turnover. They aren't likely to want to overstay anyway.0 -
Apologies folks, I'm still not clear.
If a company/association etc rents from a landlord & then finds the tenants, who is the tenancy agreement with?
If its with the company/ association then are the tenants in the property actually subletting?
If a cleaning service is provided is that the difference that makes them licencees?0 -
Normally the company takes out a commercial lease with the landlord and the company just makes the property available to their employee. The idea (I think) is that the landlord is letting it for business usage, and the RTA doesn't apply.
Sounds like a solid plan but I'm not sure it's ever been tested in court, I presume the companies wouldn't ever let a disagreement get to that stage if they can help it.
Edit: should clarify the RTA doesn't apply to the occupant, not the company.0 -
thanks for that infomation thechizler. i didn't realise there could be a commercial lease on a house or an apartment.0
-
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure it's 'supposed' to (within the spirit of the law) happen but it certainly does. There was a thread here a while back where someone went into it in detail, might be a good source of education before talking to solicitor.mrslancaster wrote: »i didn't realise there could be a commercial lease on a house or an apartment.
Can't find it now unfortunately, anyone have any ideas which thread it was?0 -
mrslancaster wrote: »thanks for that infomation thechizler. i didn't realise there could be a commercial lease on a house or an apartment.
It might be for commercial purposes. The RTA applies to every dwelling which is subject to a lease.(with some exceptions, such as council tenancies. The fact that the tenant is a company does not make it any less of a dwelling. The occupants though hold the dwelling as employees and the RTA does not apply to such persons per Section 25 (4) b. the result would be that the company and the Landlord could vent their differences at the RTB but the occupants couldn't.0 -
To the OP, could you wait till the part4 end it’s a much more straight forward way to terminate a tenancy, when I retracted an earlier renovation notice on advice and reissued an end of part 4 it was game over they left sooner than I expected.
There is too much ambiguity with that notice sure most LL’s have to do some work even though there is no recognition or allowances for their time
The company has an agreement with me I provide what ever is requested they choose the tenant, most importantly there is no VAT implication.
The tenants are professionals career minded probably have their own home where they are from, so low risk but RTB is to compromised, tenant loyal and is trampling over ownership rights so expect the market to tighten further I still get letters from RTB about due registration’s they should really put them where the sun doesn’t shine “also on advice”0 -
To the OP, could you wait till the part4 end it’s a much more straight forward way to terminate a tenancy, when I retracted an earlier renovation notice on advice and reissued an end of part 4 it was game over they left sooner than I expected.
There is too much ambiguity with that notice sure most LL’s have to do some work even though there is no recognition or allowances for their time
The company has an agreement with me I provide what ever is requested they choose the tenant, most importantly there is no VAT implication.
The tenants are professionals career minded probably have their own home where they are from, so low risk but RTB is to compromised, tenant loyal and is trampling over ownership rights so expect the market to tighten further I still get letters from RTB about due registration’s they should really put them where the sun doesn’t shine “also on advice”
Are you saying to renovate after ending a part 4 to end the rent cap?
In what way is renovating after a part 4 ends different to ending a part 4 and then renovating?
Thanks.0 -
I'd anticipate he was alluding to ending the tenancy after 4 years on the grounds of not granting a further part 4 instead of seeking to terminate due to renovationsAre you saying to renovate after ending a part 4 to end the rent cap?
In what way is renovating after a part 4 ends different to ending a part 4 and then renovating?
Thanks.0 -
Advertisement
-
The_Conductor wrote: »The problem is the government decided to abdicate its responsibility to house its citizens to the private sector- who, by definition, work under a business model. The government doesn't have to work under a business model (but even they budget and adhere to extremely strict rules and guidelines).
The government is only too happy to get out of the business of housing people- however, they are under obligations, and have devised a regulatory regime to protect the tenants- and thus fulfill their obligations- which is mute to the fact that they have outsourced housing- which infers its either being run on a for-profit basis- or supply is going to dry up. Quelle suprise- supply has dried up- and small scale landlords are getting out. The larger landlords including the REITs don't particularly care- as they're structured not to pay tax anyway- its only when tenancies are being refreshed that they're getting a dose of their own medicine- and this is also why it was necessary (after a few high profile cases) to bring in definitions regarding works etc.
By rights- the government should hold its hands up, admit its experiment to outsource housing to the private sector is a failure, bring all the housing associations etc back in house- and massively ramp up the provision of social housing units- which should be available to anyone- not just those on social welfare.
The system is broken- the imperative though- is to point a finger at a scapegoat- rather than proactively try to fix it.
Agreed that housing construction needs to be ramped up but one could argue the policy that government has pursued has created a massive shortage of suitable properties fuelling a massive increase in asset prices (benefitting landlords) and in rents (benefitting some landlords).
I'd also argue that the exit of landlords is down to people (one or two property landlords) who took out an extremely leveraged position on the Irish residential market between 2005-2007 and are now in a position to walk away almost unscathed financially (or getting there). Taking out any investment with leverage is inherently risky and the next tranche of wannabe landlords (people under 40) saw the crash and said "i'll get my own place paid for first".0 -
-
-
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »No, it just simplifies the reasoning for ending the tenancy and doesn't put an onus on the landlord to offer the previous tenant another tenancy after the renovations are complete.
Thanks.
Pity though, I thought for minute there was a viable way for me to maybe go back to long term letting at some point. Looks like I'm sticking with Airbnb for the foreseeable then.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »The problem is the government decided to abdicate its responsibility to house its citizens to the private sector- who, by definition, work under a business model. The government doesn't have to work under a business model (but even they budget and adhere to extremely strict rules and guidelines).
The government is only too happy to get out of the business of housing people- however, they are under obligations, and have devised a regulatory regime to protect the tenants- and thus fulfill their obligations- which is mute to the fact that they have outsourced housing- which infers its either being run on a for-profit basis- or supply is going to dry up. Quelle suprise- supply has dried up- and small scale landlords are getting out. The larger landlords including the REITs don't particularly care- as they're structured not to pay tax anyway- its only when tenancies are being refreshed that they're getting a dose of their own medicine- and this is also why it was necessary (after a few high profile cases) to bring in definitions regarding works etc.
By rights- the government should hold its hands up, admit its experiment to outsource housing to the private sector is a failure, bring all the housing associations etc back in house- and massively ramp up the provision of social housing units- which should be available to anyone- not just those on social welfare.
The system is broken- the imperative though- is to point a finger at a scapegoat- rather than proactively try to fix it.
If you go back to page 3 of this thread I do briefly mention this, the failure of the government to provide council homes is at the crux of this model failure.
HAP again another complete disaster as I do not think renting to low income families on government assistance is something morally the private sector should be responsible for or allowed to do, it creates a social imbalance.
I agree the government has abdicated responsibility but then we are all responsible for voting them in....
The laws put in place are their to try and mirror what the government should be doing.
This is not about scapegoating it is about landlords knowingly being aware of the arena they are stepping into.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
This is not about scapegoating it is about landlords knowingly being aware of the arena they are stepping into.
If LLs shouldn't look on renting as a business, do you think it should be a benevolent endeavour? I only ask because if that's the case, I'm going to ask my bank if I can pay the mortgage in good deeds and cuddles.0 -
If LLs shouldn't look on renting as a business, do you think it should be a benevolent endeavour? I only ask because if that's the case, I'm going to ask my bank if I can pay the mortgage in good deeds and cuddles.
I think is many cases the bank should not give mortgages to people who have the intention of renting.
The housing crisis requires some understanding of economics.
Understanding the flaws of treating homes as assets and not liabilities/necessities should be clear to anyone in Ireland who predates the 90s.
Ultimately people with homes who decided to buy more homes with the intention of renting will have the impact of pushing up houses prices. This works to their benefit in that their current home increases in value the value of their rental property also increases, it also has the impact of pushing mortgages out of the hands of people with no equity and therefore ensuring their rental market as these people have no other option but to rent which in turns pushes rentals up.
Ultimately a LL is providing nothing of value from this business venture other than to prop up what is essentially a pyramid scheme using third party money to pay for a property which they now own.
The "free market" within reason works well, it works well in engineering, science and technology all the areas that bring actual value, the competition in these sectors usually has the impact of bringing prices down to meet the common consumer but there are areas were the free market will work against the mass to befit the few if it is allowed to do so.
The housing market is one area where this has been allowed to happen, pharmaceuticals is another. With these two there are moral, ethical and social ramifications to consider.
The model is broken and has been for a while.
It is not about being benevolent and more about not being oblivious...0 -
Your taking a narrow time frame to come to flawed conclusions.
The model is only broken because the supply of the competing housing, social and privately owned (vs rented) disappeared.
When supply was managed, rents were low people had options of social, part ownership, and even ownership.
You don't seem to remember when a decent house was about 30k in Dublin and builders couldn't sell them.
You could only rent them for pittance. In fact often it cost money to rent property out. Lot of property was empty all over, especially in the cities.
There wasn't the gulf between wages, cost of living, and housing that there is today.
Then cheap credit and loans and mortgages arrived with no controls. Then BOOM. Govt sold off social housing, cancelled part ownership (no stock left) .
LL are leaving the market, rental stock is disappearing. Nothing is replacing this shortfall. Its not people getting into private rentals causing this issue. Its people leaving it.
You are blaming the symptoms for the cause of the problem. Treating the symptoms while ignoring the cause. Lack of supply. Lack of Supply means lack of competition.
The cause of this is Govt policy on housing, and also lack of regulation of banking. Instead they fueled the fire and boom with their inaction.
Pushing property out of rental market into AirBnB or other places, will do nothing except make the problem worse. But some seem determined to cut the branch they are standing on.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I think is many cases the bank should not give mortgages to people who have the intention of renting.
The housing crisis requires some understanding of economics.
...
Removing all supply from a market requires some understanding of a supply chain.
Its like removing all food from a famine to stop price gouging.
http://www.thejournal.ie/daft-rental-report-rents-soaring-3557448-Aug2017/0 -
Removing all supply from a market requires some understanding of a supply chain.
Its like removing all food from a famine to stop price gouging.
http://www.thejournal.ie/daft-rental-report-rents-soaring-3557448-Aug2017/
HOLD YOUR HORSES... That article seems to focus on the continuing reduction in the amount of properties being advertised for rent, not the total number of properties actually being rented. If so, then it misses the point that the amount of people renting is actually possibly increasing and the amount of properties around the country that are rented out is also increasing, not decreasing. All of which drives up the price of property so that it becomes out of reach for would-be homeowners, but within reach of... investing landlords...?
Maybe I'm missing the obvious here, but that article certainly seems a bit misleading...0 -
Advertisement
-
What you are missing is that there is a mismatch between the supply of rental properties and the numbers of people seeking them. It does not matter if the absolute number of people renting increases. What matters is, whether any intending renter can secure suitable affordable rental accommodation. estate agents report that they get more instructions to sell ex rental property than they get investing purchasers. this may be offset to some extent by big institutional landlords, but the reality is that supply is being squuzed with consequent effects on rent levels.HOLD YOUR HORSES... That article seems to focus on the continuing reduction in the amount of properties being advertised for rent, not the total number of properties actually being rented. If so, then it misses the point that the amount of people renting is actually possibly increasing and the amount of properties around the country that are rented out is also increasing, not decreasing.
Maybe I'm missing the obvious here, but that article certainly seems a bit misleading...0 -
HOLD YOUR HORSES... That article seems to focus on the continuing reduction in the amount of properties being advertised for rent, not the total number of properties actually being rented. If so, then it misses the point that the amount of people renting is actually possibly increasing and the amount of properties around the country that are rented out is also increasing, not decreasing. All of which drives up the price of property so that it becomes out of reach for would-be homeowners, but within reach of... investing landlords...?
Maybe I'm missing the obvious here, but that article certainly seems a bit misleading...
As 4ensic15 said the issue is the shortage, not the amount of places rented. At least for tenants.
If we had twice as many rental properties but no shortage of place to move into we wouldn't have these threads.
We have population growth, in the middle of a housing crisis due to immigration. Though net outward migration of Irish Nationals.
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2017/
I'm curious what defines a landlord as an "investing landlord" as a opposed to a non-investing landlord.
Considering something like 70~80% of Landlords only have one rental property, and something like 6% have more than 4 rental properties. In an old survey almost half of landlords wanted out of the market, and something like 36% didn't buy with the intention to rent.
I don't know but I would say a lot of new landlords are funds buying into the property market and their properties tend to be at the top end of the market. As that's where the max profit it, and they will be the ones with many properties. I would expect its the low end that is leaving the market.0 -
Your taking a narrow time frame to come to flawed conclusions.
The model is only broken because the supply of the competing housing, social and privately owned (vs rented) disappeared.
When supply was managed, rents were low people had options of social, part ownership, and even ownership.
You don't seem to remember when a decent house was about 30k in Dublin and builders couldn't sell them.
You could only rent them for pittance. In fact often it cost money to rent property out. Lot of property was empty all over, especially in the cities.
There wasn't the gulf between wages, cost of living, and housing that there is today.
Then cheap credit and loans and mortgages arrived with no controls. Then BOOM. Govt sold off social housing, cancelled part ownership (no stock left) .
LL are leaving the market, rental stock is disappearing. Nothing is replacing this shortfall. Its not people getting into private rentals causing this issue. Its people leaving it.
You are blaming the symptoms for the cause of the problem. Treating the symptoms while ignoring the cause. Lack of supply. Lack of Supply means lack of competition.
The cause of this is Govt policy on housing, and also lack of regulation of banking. Instead they fueled the fire and boom with their inaction.
Pushing property out of rental market into AirBnB or other places, will do nothing except make the problem worse. But some seem determined to cut the branch they are standing on.
So we could go back and forth on the "cause"... Lack of supply due to government abdication and lack of regulation goes full circle to property developers greasing wheels and telling the governments that regulations will kill the "celtic tiger".
The cause is complex I understand that, but the cause being complex does not impact on the logic of the rental model being a bad, they are not mutually exclusive, the rental model is bad all on its own....0 -
Actually the rental model is good, it's the legislation that is bad as evidenced in the ops case. A functioning rental market needs a steady supply of properties and lots of small to medium landlords. Large REIT type owners would have too much influence on the market if property ownership was restricted to a handful of companies. Most property owners do not consider renting a business for profit, they, like the op, consider it a means to pay a mortgage so that a profit can later be realised by a future sale. Many landlords actually don't want to be landlords, they just can't sell due to negative equity.
It is naive in the extreme to box all landlords into the same category and then declare they shouldn't be there, without them the housing crises would be exponentially worse.0 -
Actually the rental model is good, it's the legislation that is bad as evidenced in the ops case. A functioning rental market needs a steady supply of properties and lots of small to medium landlords. Large REIT type owners would have too much influence on the market if property ownership was restricted to a handful of companies. Most property owners do not consider renting a business for profit, they, like the op, consider it a means to pay a mortgage so that a profit can later be realised by a future sale. Many landlords actually don't want to be landlords, they just can't sell due to negative equity.
It is naive in the extreme to box all landlords into the same category and then declare they shouldn't be there, without them the housing crises would be exponentially worse.
So we have people who bought homes they could not afford at an over inflated price.... Why is that?
Certain paradox with this argument.
Government abdication cause and effect, if there was no private sector to fill the rental gap then governement abdication could not of happened. So the housing crisis would not of been exponentially worse, this is a failure of the model.
Have you ever heard of Braess's paradox? Granded the math is based around road networks but look it up, the idea that adding more to solve an issue does not always have the desired effect we might think it will have.
Math based modelling is complicated and there are a lot of factors to consider.0 -
I'll agree with this; the more the government tries to force (add the rule) LL's to accept people on RAS, HAP, etc, the more landlords leave the market (and thus the "track" becomes congested).ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Have you ever heard of Braess's paradox? Granded the math is based around road networks but look it up, the idea that adding more to solve an issue does not always have the desired effect we might think it will have.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So we have people who bought homes they could not afford at an over inflated price.... Why is that?
Certain paradox with this argument.
r.
That is simplistic and assumes that the true value of a property and whether it can be afforded is measured only at a particular point in time.
Property values rise and fall, that is the nature of the property market. People who bought at the peak in 2006 didn't expect their asset to drop in value, it did through no fault of their own, but here's the thing, now that value of that property is rising again and may actually go above what was paid for it. Positive to negative, and back again. Many people could easily afford repayments on investment properties when bought, but again, through no fault of their own they lost jobs/income, rental rates dropped due to oversupply etc, now that to has been reversed.
The paradox also works in reverse, what seemed like a bad, expensive investment for some (not all) may in time look like a good, valuable investment. But that does not change the fact that the market needs small/medium property owners and not REITs only. REITs will invest in cities where demand is high, rents are high and assets appreciate, they will not invest in Gorey, Edenderry, Tuam etc.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »...So the housing crisis would not of been exponentially worse, this is a failure of the model...
Define failure. The model was manipulated to create value and thus investment back into Ireland and simulate building. It has done that.
If you consider the lack of action by govt to fix the housing problem and the interventions known to not to work, then the preferencial treatment of investment funds, and the denigration of the small landlords rights, and those leaving the market.
From an investment and economic activity point of view it's a success. Just not for those in housing difficulty.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »...
Have you ever heard of Braess's paradox? Granded the math is based around road networks but look it up, the idea that adding more to solve an issue does not always have the desired effect we might think it will have.
Math based modelling is complicated and there are a lot of factors to consider....
You think it's accidental that the wealthy are getting wealthier in the middle of the worst housing crisis in the history of the state.
The govt have made it almost impossible to run and insure a banger of a car on a shoestring budget. But it's cheaper to run a brand new luxury hybrid SUV. That might be a better example for your maths. Unless of course you consider the impact that has on driving economic activity in the car Irish car market.0 -
That is simplistic and assumes that the true value of a property and whether it can be afforded is measured only at a particular point in time.
Property values rise and fall, that is the nature of the property market. People who bought at the peak in 2006 didn't expect their asset to drop in value, it did through no fault of their own, but here's the thing, now that value of that property is rising again and may actually go above what was paid for it. Positive to negative, and back again. Many people could easily afford repayments on investment properties when bought, but again, through no fault of their own they lost jobs/income, rental rates dropped due to oversupply etc, now that to has been reversed.
The paradox also works in reverse, what seemed like a bad, expensive investment for some (not all) may in time look like a good, valuable investment. But that does not change the fact that the market needs small/medium property owners and not REITs only. REITs will invest in cities where demand is high, rents are high and assets appreciate, they will not invest in Gorey, Edenderry, Tuam etc.
So again the models and there are many different models but the main issue with the housing crisis model happened sometime in the 90s.
Houses started to be treated as asset and equity opposed to a liability and commodity.
The model worked prior to this because house prices where leveled out in relation to what people earned and not based on the value of the asset and the potential growth of the asset. As soon as this happened we saw house prices go in a trend that Ireland has never saw before.
People where buying houses in Ireland long before the late 90s and early 00s.0 -
Advertisement
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So again the models and there are many different models but the main issue with the housing crisis model happened sometime in the 90s.
Houses started to be treated as asset and equity opposed to a liability and commodity.
The model worked prior to this because house prices where leveled out in relation to what people earned and not based on the value of the asset and the potential growth of the asset. As soon as this happened we saw house prices go in a trend that Ireland has never saw before.
People where buying houses in Ireland long before the late 90s and early 00s.
Rubbish. Property speculation as a concept is as old as humanity. Since the day the first form of boundary markings were erected, people considered property as an asset, not a liability.
Do you think people in the 90s only purchased properties as their primary residence? What do you think people rented in the 90s? I was a student in the late 80s and I rented a house/apartment and I pretty sure the owner considered it an asset.0
Advertisement