Giving Landlords Criminal Convictions

Bubbaclaus

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

has been interesting to see reaction indeed. Certainly revealing of some real attitudes And yes it it all connected.
And I am heartily thankful to be out of private renting . It has been a nightmare.

BTW, I do not rely on the Irish state. I am a UK pensioner .... any extra benefits are EU sanctioned,

Over and out from me!

You clearly do rely on the Irish state. You have said many times you live in a council house. You even mentioned the council were going renovating your bathroom for you and installing a bath.

The money paying for all of that isn't growing on trees. It's coming from Irish taxpayers.

Graces7

amcalester wrote: »

You literally do, you can’t provide a roof over your head.

You are reliant on handouts from at least 2 states.

No I am a citizen of one and in the EU status of another.

OK? OK!

Cared for as are millions rightfully.

Thank you for the..... education ..

l5auim2pjnt8qx

Graces7 wrote: »

No I am a citizen of one and in the EU status of another.

OK? OK!

Cared for as are millions rightfully.

Thank you for the..... education ..

I think your just a little bit confused Grace ! but we don't mind looking after
you so long as your nice to the other OAP's in your community.:)

amcalester

Graces7 wrote: »

No I am a citizen of one and in the EU status of another.

OK? OK!

Cared for as are millions rightfully.

Thank you for the..... education ..

What are you talking about?

You said you don’t rely on the Irish state despite living in a house supplied by the Irish state.

Citizenship/EU have nothing to do with the fact you are reliant on state handouts in the form of a place to live.

Graces7

Most of the last dozen plus messages are just blank screens here. Interesting phenomenon...

Graham

Mod Note:

Graces7, your accommodation status does not appear to be related to the topic at hand. Should you or others wish to continue to discuss your living arrangements, please do so by PM.

BUACHAILL

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.

Agreed

Its amazing how Rogue Landlords are branded for needing their rental payed etc yet a tenant can sign a contract and yet walk away without honoring that.

The banks and government were not so forgiving or supportive of people being unable to pay their mortgages when the crash hit.

Country is a farce

STB.

There are some right loopers in this thread with ideas that landlords are businesses that have social housing and public service responsibilites.

Actually thats the job of the state.

It is frightening that the main party (FG) were voted into power in 2011 on the back of the promises not to pay off unsecured bodholders, which was immediately broken when they got in. This has cost the country billions a lot of which could have been spent on housing health and education. Then we had NAMA which disposed of a lot of distressed property and investment property portfolios, most of which was sold to vulture funds. None of it was reserved for a state housing need. Indeed many of the County Councils had to compete with the large American vulture funds and as a result none or very little was bought.

So FG realising they have done fúck all in the last 7 years in terms of social housing try and abdicate the state housing and social responsibilities on private landlords through rent controls and nonsensical legislation to drive landlords out of the market in orderto throw distraction away from what they didnt do. Likewise the PRTB, another light touch regulation agency. God forbid anyone has a situation whereby a tenant breaks the terms of their agreement and does not pay for months and even after eventual eviction finds that whatever agreement was reached really has no reality of financial recoupment. Many of these landlords are just paying a mortgage and must make up the shortfall themselves as if they are a multinational business ecept without any finacancialincentives or allowances.

There are many reluctant landlords in the housing market I am sure, many of whom nobody gave a damn about when they had to make up the shortfall in their mortgage payments in the bad times that now have rent controls and social responsibilities in the absence of a housing plan that the government forgot about.

I dont know who in the landlord's representation group made their presentation to the various committees on housing but they must have been asleep.

The amount of bad lefty rubbish on this thread confusing social housing expectations that should be met by state housing agencies which is where it should come from rather than private landlords renting a house is astonishing.

Goes to show that the FG PR machine has been successful and that many still dont realise that its just the governments way of passing the buck in the absence of a plan for housing.

rossmores

Excellent post 100% spot on

l5auim2pjnt8qx

STB. wrote: »

There are some right loopers in this thread with ideas that landlords are businesses that have social housing and public service responsibilites.

Actually thats the job of the state.

It is frightening that the main party (FG) were voted into power in 2011 on the back of the promises not to pay off unsecured bodholders, which was immediately broken when they got in. This has cost the country billions a lot of which could have been spent on housing health and education. Then we had NAMA which disposed of a lot of distressed property and investment property portfolios, most of which was sold to vulture funds. None of it was reserved for a state housing need. Indeed many of the County Councils had to compete with the large American vulture funds and as a result none or very little was bought.

So FG realising they have done fúck all in the last 7 years in terms of social housing try and abdicate the state housing and social responsibilities on private landlords through rent controls and nonsensical legislation to drive landlords out of the market in orderto throw distraction away from what they didnt do. Likewise the PRTB, another light touch regulation agency. God forbid anyone has a situation whereby a tenant breaks the terms of their agreement and does not pay for months and even after eventual eviction finds that whatever agreement was reached really has no reality of financial recoupment. Many of these landlords are just paying a mortgage and must make up the shortfall themselves as if they are a multinational business ecept without any finacancialincentives or allowances.

There are many reluctant landlords in the housing market I am sure, many of whom nobody gave a damn about when they had to make up the shortfall in their mortgage payments in the bad times that now have rent controls and social responsibilities in the absence of a housing plan that the government forgot about.

I dont know who in the landlord's representation group made their presentation to the various committees on housing but they must have been asleep.

The amount of bad lefty rubbish on this thread confusing social housing expectations that should be met by state housing agencies which is where it should come from rather than private landlords renting a house is astonishing.

Goes to show that the FG PR machine has been successful and that many still dont realise that its just the governments way of passing the buck in the absence of a plan for housing.

Nailed it STB.

The bigger problem we now face is a join up of extreme left wing and extreme right wing ideas or an overlapping of the two - The left wing Politicians & housing associations encouraging OverHolding which is just another name for Illegally hoarding and the right extreme wing criminalising small time Landlords for offering Private rental accomodation.......This agenda will have the countries on its knees at a time of a Economic Boom!

Why : This article shows how damaging this will be to the country
'Aggressive' vulture funds swoop in on Irish property - Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/8d559d8c-f3a3-11e6-8758-6876151821a6

utmbuilder

Lets do the rough maths very very rough , is being a landlord a good investment.

House Cost modest 3 bed Dublin
€330,000
30%ltv deposit 90k

Mortgage 230k repayments over 30 years (not that a buy2let would get that term) 906 a month at 3% fixed

Rent 1600
Tax 800

Topup 100 a month to pay mortgage,

Topup over 30 years 45,000

Home value in 30 years 330, your 90k made you 300+%

6.5%ish apr on your investment of 90k

Less wear , maintenance and capital gains wheb you sell, its still a viable pension a risky one but inflation proof.

A bank will give you 3% if lucky before dirt on interest

Graham

You'll be doing miraculously well to find a BTL mortgage rate anywhere near 3%.

pwurple

Utmbuilder, your assumptions are off the wall.

You’re assuming full occupancy, a buytolet rate which does not exist, 0 costs (legal, property management, upkeep), conveniently forgotten about tax when selling, and negative equity which some landlords are still in.

The_Conductor

utmbuilder wrote: »

Lets do the rough maths very very rough , is being a landlord a good investment.

House Cost modest 3 bed Dublin
€330,000
30%ltv deposit 90k

Mortgage 230k repayments over 30 years (not that a buy2let would get that term) 906 a month at 3% fixed

Rent 1600
Tax 800

Topup 100 a month to pay mortgage,

Topup over 30 years 45,000

Home value in 30 years 330, your 90k made you 300+%

6.5%ish apr on your investment of 90k

Less wear , maintenance and capital gains wheb you sell, its still a viable pension a risky one but inflation proof.

A bank will give you 3% if lucky before dirt on interest

Even if your assumptions were fair or reasonable (they're not)- the cutoff for an investment grade- is 8%- and the REITs advertise returns of up 10% (on the basis that their tax status allows this (and any tax will only be at the dividend rate for investors).

None of your interest rate assumptions are plausible.

No cognisance of a regulatory regime where a non-paying tenant could leave you incomeless for 2 years + with no mechanism for ever getting the money they've stolen from you.

No cognisance of regular ongoing costs- or annual charges (LPT, Management Charges, one-offs, ongoing maintenance if a stand-alone unit etc etc)

Your scenario is very much a rosy picture- where nothing goes wrong- and where you get decent loans at a good rate- and sit back and relax........... Unfortunately- the world isn't like that- and the current regulatory regime- is designed specifically to drive landlords who try to run their properties like this- from the sector.

We are in for such a world of hurt in this country- as rates increase........

Minderbinder

ted1 wrote: »

Xterminator wrote: »

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.

For every bad landlord there are bad tenants. But the media don’t carry those stories.

It niave and dangerous to only bring in laws which turn private houses in to social housing.

They need to balance the laws. Rents and mortgages rates would drop if evictions and repossessed were made easier.

As a landlord I have to charge more so as to cover costs for when I get a bad tenant

Can I just ask if you would reward a good tenant in any way?

I mean if they’re paying more to cover a bad tenant, would it not be a good thing if you knocked a few Euro a week off the rent after a year if they’ve always paid on time and kept your house in good order?

amcalester

Minderbinder wrote: »

Can I just ask if you would reward a good tenant in any way?

I mean if they’re paying more to cover a bad tenant, would it not be a good thing if you knocked a few Euro a week off the rent after a year if they’ve always paid on time and kept your house in good order?

The problem with doing this is that any discount offered to a sitting tenant (in an RPZ) currently has to be offered to the next tenant who has done nothing to earn it/may not be as good a tenant.

And, outside of an RPZ landlords are afraid of being caught in a newly designated RPZ with a discounted rent so are upping it to the maximum at each rent review.

There's no incentive to a landlord to offer a discount to a good tenant.

Minderbinder

Minderbinder wrote: »

Can I just ask if you would reward a good tenant in any way?

I mean if they’re paying more to cover a bad tenant, would it not be a good thing if you knocked a few Euro a week off the rent after a year if they’ve always paid on time and kept your house in good order?

Not any more, I won't. I used to give discounts on an almost annual basis to keep good tenants, til the RPZ legislation came in meaning I was forced to rent at well below market rate.

This not only had financial implications, but meant that it actually turned some people away from viewing the place when i put it on DAFT. The first question I was asked, by more than one prospective tenenat, was "What's wrong with the place, why is it so cheap? I nearly didn't bother coming..."

erudec

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.

Are you certain they're not fully liable for damages done? As far as I know the RTB often rules against tenants and orders them to pay, using their real names. I've seen the rulings online.

The only way they are supposed to "get away with it" is by skipping the country and if you rent to non-nationals you have to figure that in your risk analysis.

Or by declaring bankruptcy, which is far from getting off scot free.

Again, I am no expert, but I've seen some of it up close. The main lesson is never hire a lawyer unless he tells you in writing that he will take an RTB case if negotiations don't work.

The_Conductor

Being fully liable- means nothing- if the tenant looses the court case, pleads penury, and the judge awards you a Euro a week for the next 45 years......... Thats the knux of the issue- it doesn't matter whether the tenant is found liable or not- they seldom have anything to loose. The landlord on the other- has an asset that the judge, the RTB and the looney lefties- would love to have charges attached to- if they are found to have wronged the tenant.

Its heads you loose, tails the tenant wins. One way or the other- the landlord is seldom going to come through the legal process better off.

Samuel T. Cogley

erudec wrote: »

The only way they are supposed to "get away with it" is by skipping the country and if you rent to non-nationals you have to figure that in your risk analysis.

So you want no dealings with the tenants but are going to ensure the agent breaches equality legislation and refuses non-nationals. Please keep us updated on how you're getting on.

Fol20

Tbh. Non nationals are better than us Irish. The rental legislatiok is so much better in most other western countries and when they come here. They bring their renting culture with it.

4ensic15

erudec wrote: »

Are you certain they're not fully liable for damages done? As far as I know the RTB often rules against tenants and orders them to pay, using their real names. I've seen the rulings online.

The only way they are supposed to "get away with it" is by skipping the country and if you rent to non-nationals you have to figure that in your risk analysis.

Or by declaring bankruptcy, which is far from getting off scot free.

Again, I am no expert, but I've seen some of it up close. The main lesson is never hire a lawyer unless he tells you in writing that he will take an RTB case if negotiations don't work.

Cases often don't start against ex-tenants because the RTB doesn't have their address. Even if the RTb rulse against a tenant, it then requires a court case to have judgement entered. The RTB does not proceed to court in every case, as it has a limited budget, most of which appears to be spent on overholding cases and enforcement against defaulting landlords.

erudec

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So you want no dealings with the tenants but are going to ensure the agent breaches equality legislation and refuses non-nationals. Please keep us updated on how you're getting on.

I didn't say, don't rent to them, I said factor it into your risk analysis. Find out what the process is for enforcement of debt in their country of origin.

Whoever you rent to, make sure that you know how to enforce the debt, legally.

That's not discriminatory, it's good sense.

erudec

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So you want no dealings with the tenants but are going to ensure the agent breaches equality legislation and refuses non-nationals. Please keep us updated on how you're getting on.

I didn't say refuse non-nationals, though. If you are renting to a Pakistani, find out how to have a debt enforced in Pakistan. Ask for references (translated to English by a reputable translation firm, translation paid for by applicant) from Karachi institutions. Just do the due diligence required to cover yourself as you would for an Irish person.

It's the tenant's job to convince you that he's a good risk. Ask all prospective tenants to do that.

Be fair. Rent to whoever is able to demonstrate that they are a good risk, regardless of national origin.

Where did you get the idea of "do a risk analysis" meaning "discriminate illegally like a KKK member"?

Instead of puking out baseless accusations in a "Ready, fire, aim" manner, you could think what the words mean, it makes conversation go better.

erudec

4ensic15 wrote: »

Cases often don't start against ex-tenants because the RTB doesn't have their address. Even if the RTb rulse against a tenant, it then requires a court case to have judgement entered. The RTB does not proceed to court in every case, as it has a limited budget, most of which appears to be spent on overholding cases and enforcement against defaulting landlords.

Can't you legally refuse to rent to a person because they refuse to provide an address at which they can be reached?

Isn't asking for proof of address totally legitimate?

I assume it wouldn't be discriminatory to request a legal declaration guaranteed by a law firm in their country of origin, provided you ask for the same or an equivalent security from all Irish applicants.

erudec

The_Conductor wrote: »

Being fully liable- means nothing- if the tenant looses the court case, pleads penury, and the judge awards you a Euro a week for the next 45 years......... Thats the knux of the issue- it doesn't matter whether the tenant is found liable or not- they seldom have anything to loose. The landlord on the other- has an asset that the judge, the RTB and the looney lefties- would love to have charges attached to- if they are found to have wronged the tenant.

Its heads you loose, tails the tenant wins. One way or the other- the landlord is seldom going to come through the legal process better off.

Having a court ruling against you is a loss for most people.

It's still a massive deterrent. That debtor will be excluded from affordable credit for years after that.

4ensic15

erudec wrote: »

Can't you legally refuse to rent to a person because they refuse to provide an address at which they can be reached?

Isn't asking for proof of address totally legitimate?

I assume it wouldn't be discriminatory to request a legal declaration guaranteed by a law firm in their country of origin, provided you ask for the same or an equivalent security from all Irish applicants.

You get an address before the letting. The problem is after the tenancy has ended.The RTB won't start a case against a person with no known address.

Samuel T. Cogley

erudec wrote: »

I didn't say refuse non-nationals, though. If you are renting to a Pakistani, find out how to have a debt enforced in Pakistan. Ask for references (translated to English by a reputable translation firm, translation paid for by applicant) from Karachi institutions. Just do the due diligence required to cover yourself as you would for an Irish person.

It's the tenant's job to convince you that he's a good risk. Ask all prospective tenants to do that.

Be fair. Rent to whoever is able to demonstrate that they are a good risk, regardless of national origin.

Where did you get the idea of "do a risk analysis" meaning "discriminate illegally like a KKK member"?

Instead of puking out baseless accusations in a "Ready, fire, aim" manner, you could think what the words mean, it makes conversation go better.

As I say let us know how you get on with refusing a tenant on the basis on not being able to enforce the debt in Pakistan. I'm also curious how you're going to get an agent to do this.

beauf

Fol20 wrote: »

Tbh. Non nationals are better than us Irish. The rental legislatiok is so much better in most other western countries and when they come here. They bring their renting culture with it.

Are significant numbers of renters from those countries. I'm guessing not very many.

beauf

erudec wrote: »

Having a court ruling against you is a loss for most people.

It's still a massive deterrent. That debtor will be excluded from affordable credit for years after that.

It really isn't. Most people won't go to court as its just throwing good money after bad. Even then its likely most of these will have bad credit rating already. So for the LL its a no win game.

A LL Just needs to get a new tenant in as fast as possible. But all the changes make this slower and slower.