Giving Landlords Criminal Convictions

utmbuilder

Lot of talk this week about giving Landlords criminal convictions if they breach RTB rules around rate setting.

Sounds like you will almost need a solicitor now to just let your house.

endacl

Not really. You just need to play by the rules.

GingerLily

utmbuilder wrote: »

Lot of talk this week about giving Landlords criminal convictions if they breach RTB rules around rate setting.

Sounds like you will almost need a solicitor now to just let your house.

If you can't do the maths then maybe you should.

I would assume that convictions would be reserved for only extreme cases including illegal evictions etc.

handlemaster

endacl wrote: »

Not really. You just need to play by the rules.

Will the same rules apply to tenants ? Currently tenants can walk away after owning an unlimited amount of unpaid rent and property damage.

murphaph

endacl wrote: »

Not really. You just need to play by the rules.

Should tenants who fail to pay rent be prosecuted?

lawred2

utmbuilder wrote: »

Lot of talk this week about giving Landlords criminal convictions if they breach RTB rules around rate setting.

Sounds like you will almost need a solicitor now to just let your house.

or not break laws

lawred2

murphaph wrote: »

Should tenants who fail to pay rent be prosecuted?

If they have the means to pay rent and are simply making a decision to withhold rent then yes - they should.

Tombo2001

lawred2 wrote: »

If they have the means to pay rent and are simply making a decision to withhold rent then yes - they should.

So if they sign a legal agreement and then dont honour that legal agreement.....thats ok; unless the landlord can show they have loads of money in the bank.

oooooh.....yea.

And someone said Landlords dont need a solicitor?

Tombo2001

It is quite remarkable that

property market is trouble because not enough properties out there/ ergo not enough landlords.

you would think

Well lets attract more landlords.

but no - the narrative is exactly the opposite. Its about demonising landlords.

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with punishing rogue landlords.

The narrative of demonising landlords, consistently, is another reason (of many) not to become a landlord. Which actually exacerbates the property situation....

lawred2

Tombo2001 wrote: »

So if they sign a legal agreement and then dont honour that legal agreement.....thats ok; unless the landlord can show they have loads of money in the bank.

oooooh.....yea.

And someone said Landlords dont need a solicitor?

hang on a minute - the reference to a solicitor being needed was with regards to landlords operating outside the rules that govern them.. To defend them against conviction. As is their right. But operate within the governing rules and no such solicitor is needed.

The question I answered was

Should tenants who fail to pay rent be prosecuted?

To which I said

If they have the means to pay rent and are simply making a decision to withhold rent then yes - they should.

Why would a landlord need a solicitor when it is the state that would be 'prosecuting'?

Prosecute has no meaning in civil law.

If you meant that you would need a solicitor for a civil case - then yeah - it would help. As is how it's always been.

doolox

How many shopkeepers and barmen were jailed for breaking the laws that govern their trades?

Very few.

This nonsense law will be the same.

Optics to show the general population that "something is being done" about the landlord problem. The most the will happen is that they will serve a few days and be out again like all non-violent criminals.

The big deterrent will be loss of earnings due to loss of job because of having a criminal record. Most professional high paying jobs require a criminal free record and vetting to operate in. Others require candidates to be of good character. All gone if you have a criminal record.

There will be a general switch to large impersonal corporations owning large blocks of housing in time. The days of the individual landlord are over. This will cover the risks to investors by each having a small share of many houses or units to let in a large corporation. The risks and responsibilities will also be shared if a mistake is made, who to blame?

The large corporations (REITS ) will be better able to afford the legal expertise to take on defaulting tenants and those who advocate illegal acts on their behalf. Much like what happened to unions when legislation was introduced to make the union officers personally liable for wildcat strikes etc. I wonder how quick the government will be to jail people who damage property belonging to landlords or withholding rent etc? No optics in this course of action and fewer votes.

beauf

utmbuilder wrote: »

Lot of talk this week about giving Landlords criminal convictions if they breach RTB rules around rate setting.

Sounds like you will almost need a solicitor now to just let your house.

...progress to solving housing crisis = 0

..vilifying LL to deflect from housing crisis =1

handlemaster

lawred2 wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Should tenants who fail to pay rent be prosecuted?

If they have the means to pay rent and are simply making a decision to withhold rent then yes - they should.

If they have means to pay ? Your having a laugh. If a tenant signs a contract. They should be held to it. Tenants leaving or been evicted from property should be forced to pay what they own plus interest. At the moment the cost to landlords to bring a court case for monies owned is prehibitive and en forcing rulings is another issue. It should be automatically enforcible that welfare payments or salary slips are docked to repay monies owed.

Samuel T. Cogley

Personally in favour of the new measures. Certainly support these more than some of the silly **** that's been done in recent times.

Play by the rules and there isn't an issue.

handlemaster

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Personally in favour of the new measures. Certainly support these more than some of the silly **** that's been done in recent times.

Play by the rules and there isn't an issue.

And of you dont its only the landlord that pays. No issue with that but make it also enforcible for the tenants who dont as you say play by the rules

lawred2

handlemaster wrote: »

If they have means to pay ? Your having a laugh. If a tenant signs a contract. They should be held to it. Tenants leaving or been evicted from property should be forced to pay what they own plus interest. At the moment the cost to landlords to bring a court case for monies owned is prehibitive and en forcing rulings is another issue. It should be automatically enforcible that welfare payments or salary slips are docked to repay monies owed.

Yeah - doubled over I am.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

If they have the means to pay rent and are simply making a decision to withhold rent then yes - they should.

Not having the means to pay is not an excuse, they should still be fully accountable for every cent they owe and none of this 5 euro a month nonsense. They should be forced to hand over a large propertion of any income or welfare until the LL is repaid.

JackHeuston

utmbuilder wrote: »

Lot of talk this week about giving Landlords criminal convictions if they breach RTB rules around rate setting.

Sounds like you will almost need a solicitor now to just let your house.

Of course you need a solicitor if your plans are to screw over other people where it hurts the most. I think that's been valid for a while except in the accommodation sector.

endacl

handlemaster wrote: »

Will the same rules apply to tenants ? Currently tenants can walk away after owning an unlimited amount of unpaid rent and property damage.

Tenants should play by the rules as well. I'm not 'on the side' of either tenant or landlord, by the way. I'm firmly in the 'don't be a cnut' camp.

endacl

murphaph wrote: »

Should tenants who fail to pay rent be prosecuted?

See above

lawred2

Bentlee Moldy Reader wrote: »

Not having the means to pay is not an excuse, they should still be fully accountable for every cent they owe and none of this 5 euro a month nonsense. They should be forced to hand over a large propertion of any income or welfare until the LL is repaid.

Actually it is...

There are many contracts that are broken because of genuine inability to pay. Attempts to recover these debts through the courts prove fruitless because the courts recognise the money isn't there.

Don't see why contracts with landlords should be any different from any other legal contact entered into by two parties.

beauf

lawred2 wrote: »

....Don't see why contracts with landlords should be any different from any other legal contact entered into by two parties...

... seems like people want it treated like any business as long as someone else is paying for it. As soon as it costs them money then they want it treated as not for profit social service...

...how's that working out out...

VonBeanie

lawred2 wrote: »

Don't see why contracts with landlords should be any different from any other legal contact entered into by two parties.

Now that's a novel idea. If there is a contract between 2 parties, and one party stops paying, the other party can immediately terminate the contract. Maybe if a tenant stops paying, the contract should be terminated and they should be evicted immediately ..... just like any other contract.

GGTrek

I see some posters here completely out of their mind in their socialist ideas. The comparison with other businesses does not hold! Most businesses are not price regulated and especially are never forced to continue to provide services if not paid!!! Irish govvie is going the socialist way.

I suggest the socialists and communists in this forum (I can see their bankrupt ideas popping out very frequently even in this thread) to read the wonderful ideas of the Venezuelan corrupt government and their massive failure.

Wonderful 2011 propaganda from communist media: https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6588

2014 desperation setting in and generalised expropriations by law: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594170/Venezuelan-president-orders-landlords-sell-homes-60-days-face-fine-24-000-wild-bid-plug-housing-shortage.html

Venezuelan government does jail people because they are not selling stuff at the price decided by the communist dictator! What has this caused: massive scarcity of absolutely everything! People are now starving (never mind housing)!

Again jailing people based on price controls violations appears to violate several constitutional rights. I wonder what kind of legal advisors the amateur minister of housing is using when drafting legislation. Of couse the communists and socialists liberticides live to jail/kill people for any breach of the rules the make up for their own benefit, that is why I despise them profoundly and I take real pride if I pi.. them off.

beauf

endacl wrote: »

Not really. You just need to play by the rules.

... Or at least what ever the rules are this week...

While these laws will effect very few LLs. It might encourage more to leave the business.

ted1

endacl wrote: »

Not really. You just need to play by the rules.

Rules which keep changing and don’t ever offer an a benefit. It’s simple if they want to bring in such tight rules they need to balance this by allowing quick low cost evictions

beauf

In fairness the rules are there to help with security of tenure.

However it causes people to be reluctant to move making the shortage worse for people looking for places.

There has been almost no improvements for Landlords. In fact the risks have been made much worse. The high rents are only a benefit for landlords with new tenancies.

the_syco

If this becomes law, would every landlord that is not a REIT give notice to their tenant that they're selling up, as a protest?

Samuel T. Cogley

the_syco wrote: »

If this becomes law, would every landlord that is not a REIT give notice to their tenant that they're selling up, as a protest?

No, it's not my tenants fault the government are a bunch of stupid bastards. They're people and it's their home not something to be messed about with.

I do understand your frustration though.

Xterminator

I think the people who are looking at this from a landlords perspective have to see the news stories about unscrupulous landlords putting 6 people in a bedroom, locking fire exits, faulty wiring using unregistered tradespeople, and putting peoples lives at risk.

Its naive and dangerous to ignore these abuses.

To put this in perspective as long as its a civil matter, the behavior of a tiny minority of 'landlords' will continue. I know accidental landlords will hear this and think here we go again, another nail in the coffin etc. and they (you) have a point.

But if this measure helps save one life a year - IMO it is worth it. Should legislation to ease/speed up evictions of tenants in breach of their own responsibilities be brought forward - yes it should. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

beauf

You have to ask why tenants are choosing to live in these places. Also where will they go when they disappear.

Why not also fine the tenants for supporting these rogue landlords also...