In the Dail today

garhjw

Well the communists are really going for it trying to remove all rights from the owners of property. Best 1 I heard was they want to prohibit evictions for the purpose of selling. Is the best they can come up with unworkable and unenforceable motions.

Misguided1

I heard a proposal on the radio this morning for a Granny flat grant to allow 'older' people to split their homes in two and generate an income for themselves. Problem is councils won't give planning permission to subdivide houses. Had friends invest in a property with a view to developing it into small units to rent. You'd think during a housing crisis in Dublin - they would grant permission for something like this. But nope....permission denied.

JigglyMcJabs

garhjw wrote: »

Well the communists are really going for it trying to remove all rights from the owners of property. Best 1 I heard was they want to prohibit evictions for the purpose of selling. Is the best they can come up with unworkable and unenforceable motions.

Don't really see a problem with that, if the tenant is good they should be able to stay until their tenancy is up, sale or no sale.

In the flipside it should be much easier cheaper and faster to remove bad tenants so less landlords feel the need to sell.

garhjw

JigglyMcJabs wrote: »

Don't really see a problem with that, if the tenant is good they should be able to stay until their tenancy is up, sale or no sale.

In the flipside it should be much easier cheaper and faster to remove bad tenants so less landlords feel the need to sell.

Banks won’t give mortgages on property without vacant possession. It would also either make a property unsellable or significantly devalue it if you had to see with tenants in situ....
Added to that a property owner has rights to his or her own property.

Yer Da sells Avon

We don't have any communists in the Dáil.

The left should focus not on punishing landlords, but on pressuring the government into building enough social housing (and extending the maximum income threshold), thus eventually making private landlords redundant.

STB.

JigglyMcJabs wrote: »

Don't really see a problem with that, if the tenant is good they should be able to stay until their tenancy is up, sale or no sale.

In the flipside it should be much easier cheaper and faster to remove bad tenants so less landlords feel the need to sell.

You seem to be confusing social housing obligations and rights with a private landlords interests. They are not compatible.

If a landlord has to sell his property then that is no ones business but their own.

The problem is that we have social housing tenants renting in privately owned properties because the government haven't been building any social or affordable housing. I can see where the confusion arises.

JigglyMcJabs

STB. wrote: »

You seem to be confusing social housing obligations and rights with a private landlords interests. They are not compatible.

If a landlord has to sell his property then that is no ones business but their own.

The problem is that we have social housing tenants renting in privately owned properties because the government haven't been building any social or affordable housing. I can see where the confusion arises.

I take your point, but I guess I'm arguing that a rental property with a good tenant with solid payment history should be a less risky proposition for an investment buyer than an empty property, in return for being a good tenant, they should have security of tenure. The flip side remains, a bad tenant should be out on their ear much more quickly.

Of course the seller might for some reason want to sell to someone as a private residence rather than an investment, if they want to do that, they should wait until they can end the tenancy legally at the end of the lease or part 4. This would keep a more predictable level of properties in rental and make part time landlords think twice before getting into the business.

lawred2

Misguided1 wrote: »

I heard a proposal on the radio this morning for a Granny flat grant to allow 'older' people to split their homes in two and generate an income for themselves. Problem is councils won't give planning permission to subdivide houses. Had friends invest in a property with a view to developing it into small units to rent. You'd think during a housing crisis in Dublin - they would grant permission for something like this. But nope....permission denied.

Planning for that is granted all the time as long as two or more distinct dwellings are created.

Obviously that wasn't going to be the case with your friends.

An idiotic proposal. The fact is renting is renting and should never trump an owners rights to their property, renters just have to accept that they may have to move etc. This really needs to be remember by the people making these idiotic knee jerk proposals

Jimmy.

Nothing complicated in meeting the criteria for a council house.

Assetbacked

If an owner lets out the property to someone and it is used by the tenant as their primary dwelling, that tenant needs full security of tenure. Selling a property can allow the landlord to kick out the tenant currently but that tenant calls the property their home, they may have no where to go but more importantly that is not a good reason to kick someone out of their home. It is not enough to justify this by saying to the landlord is allowed just because the property is his.

If landlords are scared and quite clearly ignorant with the use of terms like “communist”, then all that is required is a more streamlined process for removing bad tenants (e.g. tenants in arrears or tenants who are letting the property fall apart).

garhjw

Assetbacked wrote: »

If an owner lets out the property to someone and it is used by the tenant as their primary dwelling, that tenant needs full security of tenure. Selling a property can allow the landlord to kick out the tenant currently but that tenant calls the property their home, they may have no where to go but more importantly that is not a good reason to kick someone out of their home. It is not enough to justify this by saying to the landlord is allowed just because the property is his.

If landlords are scared and quite clearly ignorant with the use of terms like “communist”, then all that is required is a more streamlined process for removing bad tenants (e.g. tenants in arrears or tenants who are letting the property fall apart).

I’m not scared or ignorant. A tenant is a tenant. They do not on the property, it is not their home. They live there. If they want their own home then they should buy 1. Or apply for social housing. It is not their property. It’s not a landlords responsibility to ensure a tenant has somewhere to live when they are evicted.

Assetbacked

garhjw wrote: »

I’m not scared or ignorant. A tenant is a tenant. They do not on the property, it is not their home. They live there. If they want their own home then they should buy 1. Or apply for social housing. It is not their property. It’s not a landlords responsibility to ensure a tenant has somewhere to live when they are evicted.

But it is their home. It is not the landlord’s home. How can a tenant go and buy a property in Ireland? Bar a tiny percentage of the population who have the cash, the vast majority must borrow a lot of money from a bank to buy property. That is not sustainable and therefore a tenant is likely to remain a tenant. As such, they should be protected in their home, even if they are “only” a tenant.

jon1981

The policies so far have done nothing for landlords. I'm convinced they are making it harder and less attractive to be a small landlord unless you're one of the big institutional landlords.

garhjw

Assetbacked wrote: »

But it is their home. It is not the landlord’s home. How can a tenant go and buy a property in Ireland? Bar a tiny percentage of the population who have the cash, the vast majority must borrow a lot of money from a bank to buy property. That is not sustainable and therefore a tenant is likely to remain a tenant. As such, they should be protected in their home, even if they are “only” a tenant.

That’s not the property owners problem. And they are only a tenant. They didn’t buy the property. The state needs to sort it out but not at the expense of property owners.

GGTrek

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

We don't have any communists in the Dáil.

This is a lie!
https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2014/10/dublin-mep-candidate-interviews/

Paul Murphy is a self declared Trotzkyst and may I remind you that these people are still dreaming about the dictatorship of Proletariat (which really means their marxist dictatorship). Unlike you I stayed for a few months in communist eastern block countries when I was young and adolescent due to my parents (eccentric) travel interests. I will never forget the oppression and the police everywhere, the lack of food and basic items, the abusive police checks at the border (2 hours stopped and car opened up) and the great happyness my family had when leaving those countries, so people like Murphy make me puke.
He hates private property but as a good communist hypocrite he made full use of it during his life!

Assetbacked

Assetbacked wrote: »

But it is their home. It is not the landlord’s home. How can a tenant go and buy a property in Ireland? Bar a tiny percentage of the population who have the cash, the vast majority must borrow a lot of money from a bank to buy property. That is not sustainable and therefore a tenant is likely to remain a tenant. As such, they should be protected in their home, even if they are “only” a tenant.

Its not their home its a house they are permitted to live in for as long as the LL (the property owner) wants them oi. It tough luck to be honest, if you want the house to be your actual home then buy otherwise you have to put up with the fact you are living in someone else property and their rights of ownership should always trump a tenants rights.

Why on earth should a renter have more rights to the property than the owner its a ridiculous suggestion.

Fol20

Assetbacked wrote: »

But it is their home. It is not the landlord’s home. How can a tenant go and buy a property in Ireland? Bar a tiny percentage of the population who have the cash, the vast majority must borrow a lot of money from a bank to buy property. That is not sustainable and therefore a tenant is likely to remain a tenant. As such, they should be protected in their home, even if they are “only” a tenant.

It is not their home, they are being provided a service and accommodation but they do not legally own the property.
A tenant could just with the drop of a hat decide to move out of a house tomorrow and the only repercussion is that they will loose their deposit. The same can’t be said for the owner.
The owner has very large financial asset that can be worth half a million while the tenant has the bones of 1 or 2k in the asset in the form of a deposit.
The owner pays local property tax. The tenant does not.
The owner pays house insurance. The tenant does not. There is a stark difference between the owner and tenant and I’m surprised you think otherwise.

Assetbacked

If the above answers are the attitude of landlords then the only option is for the government to introduce policies which flood the market with properties resulting in house prices coming down to a level where it is not worth it generally as an investment.

Yer Da sells Avon

GGTrek wrote: »

This is a lie!
https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2014/10/dublin-mep-candidate-interviews/

No, I'm afraid you're lying. There is nothing in that article to suggest that even Paul Murphy, the ultimate right-winger's bogeyman, is a Communist.

garhjw

Assetbacked wrote: »

If the above answers are the attitude of landlords then the only option is for the government to introduce policies which flood the market with properties resulting in house prices coming down to a level where it is not worth it generally as an investment.

I think you must be 1 of those bitter tenants. That can’t afford to buy and listen to the far left nonsense of the commies. Sorry for your trouble.

Yer Da sells Avon

garhjw wrote: »

The state needs to sort it out but not at the expense of property owners.

In the highly unlikely event that the current right-wing government was to 'sort it out' adequately (i.e. build a sufficient quantity of social housing to meet demand and ensure that both they and private tenants no longer have to hand over vast sums to private landlords), it would inevitably be at the expense of property owners, who are currently making hay while the sun shines (i.e. ripping people off).

The sooner we have a government that places poorer people's need for reasonably priced homes above richer people's desire to profit from their misery, the better. That's not 'communism', it's just not being a f-cking sociopath.

The Student

Assetbacked wrote: »

If the above answers are the attitude of landlords then the only option is for the government to introduce policies which flood the market with properties resulting in house prices coming down to a level where it is not worth it generally as an investment.

Your quote speaks volumes. A landlord invests a significant amount of money and time in acquiring an asset, pays all the associated tax and has all the associated risk.

Don't you understand this is a business relationship the landlord and the tenant have. If the rents fell through the floor I can guarantee you the tenant would have no problem ending a tenancy if they could find a cheaper property which met their needs or do you think they would stay and pay a higher rent than that they could get elsewhere because its "their home"!

garhjw

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

In the highly unlikely event that the current right-wing government was to 'sort it out' adequately (i.e. build a sufficient quantity of social housing to meet demand and ensure that both they and private tenants no longer have to hand over vast sums to private landlords), it would inevitably be at the expense of property owners, who are currently making hay while the sun shines (i.e. ripping people off).

The sooner we have a government that places poorer people's need for reasonably priced homes above richer people's desire to profit from their misery, the better. That's not 'communism', it's just not being a f-cking sociopath.

Keep dreaming or reading your left wing ideology

Thephantomsmask

As a tenant, I don't agree with telling a landlord that they cannot sell their property. It needs to be regulated better though to put a stop to "selling" followed by the property up on daft two weeks later with a massive rent hike.

The Student

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

As a tenant, I don't agree with telling a landlord that they cannot sell their property. It needs to be regulated better though to put a stop to "selling" followed by the property up on daft two weeks later with a massive rent hike.

I am a landlord and its nice to hear this from a tenant. I would agree with the above I "play by the rules" and would not have an issue with any landlord being fined for the above behavior.

I do however think that when a tenancy ends by mutual consent then the landlord should be able to bring the rent to market rent if they have a rent significantly below the market rent. I don't accept that the good will of the landlord towards a previous tenant should transfer to the next tenant.

Assetbacked

The Student wrote: »

Your quote speaks volumes. A landlord invests a significant amount of money and time in acquiring an asset, pays all the associated tax and has all the associated risk.

Don't you understand this is a business relationship the landlord and the tenant have. If the rents fell through the floor I can guarantee you the tenant would have no problem ending a tenancy if they could find a cheaper property which met their needs or do you think they would stay and pay a higher rent than that they could get elsewhere because its "their home"!

While the tenant is using the property as their home, in the current environment, it should not be the case that they can be turned out because a home is being sold. Perhaps this should be restricted as a temporary measure for a couple ears until it is easier to move to alternative accommodation.

It’s a business relationship of course but we do not live in a completely unregulated market and this is a protection that should be brought in as an emergency measure by the government in conjunction with massively increasing supply of properties.

Fol20

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

As a tenant, I don't agree with telling a landlord that they cannot sell their property. It needs to be regulated better though to put a stop to "selling" followed by the property up on daft two weeks later with a massive rent hike.

I think heavy fines is best for this type of carry on. The same goes for delinquent tenants who should be removed promptly.

seamus

Fol20 wrote: »

It is not their home

It is the tenant's home. "Home" has a specific definition as being the place where someone is ordinary resident and has special protections under the constitution.

It is not the landlord's home. It is the landlord's property.

These are two related but very distinct definitions. The people on this thread can continue stating that "it is not the tenant's home", but they are wrong. Repeating incorrect statements won't magically make them correct.

It is important that the right to the integrity of one's home, trumps another individual's right to control their property. Property is just bricks and mortar, it's just an asset. Of no more significance than a field or a pair of shoes.
Security of the home is clearly of far more importance, individually, socially and economically.

Yes, it should be norm that properties are sold with sitting tenants. Banks will give mortgages without vacant possession, they choose not because they can get away with it.

Landlords should be allowed sell occupied properties with vacant possession, but it should be a specific action. That is, a declaration that the property was previously used as a rental, but is now being sold as a private dwelling. This would bar the vendor and any buyer from renting the property out for at least five years, with six-figure penalties for a breach.

It makes no sense that a landlord can turf out tenants, sell it to another landlord, who slots in new tenants.

And if landlords don't like this, then don't become a landlord.

We need to gut the housing market of small landlords; people who own a property or two on the side and have no business being in that position. They're a pox. We need our rental fleet to be operated by professional businesses, not half-arsed individuals.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Irish landlords do tend to see the property as their home lent out rather than just an investment. Particularly accidental landlords.

Houses should be sold with tenants attached. Tenants should rent for years.

The corollary of this is evictions for non payment or damage should be much faster. Otherwise it’s no kind of investment.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It is important that the right to the integrity of one's home, trumps another individual's right to control their property. Property is just bricks and mortar, it's just an asset. Of no more significance than a field or a pair of shoes.
Security of the home is clearly of far more importance, individually, socially and economically.
.

This couldn't be more wrong. The right a person who is temporarily staying in another persons property on the owners permission should never ever trump the rights of the property owners right. Saying it is just bricks and mortar and has no significance is quite frankly nonsense. It id the LL's property which he has spent a lot of money on and taken fincncial risk with and he should retain control. Tenants have too many rights to stay in a property already imo never mind giving them more.

If you want full security then buy other wise it's tough luck.

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it should be norm that properties are sold with sitting tenants. Banks will give mortgages without vacant possession, they choose not because they can get away with it..

They should be allowed sell with vacant possession to the highest bidder be that another LL or person who will live in the house.

seamus wrote: »

It makes no sense that a landlord can turf out tenants, sell it to another landlord, who slots in new tenants.

It makes perfect sense, even if the house is sold to a new LL he hasn't vetted these tenants or may want a different type of tenant and since he is the one taking the financial risk he have control over who lives in his property.

He may also want to renovate or he may want to do 5 months leases etc which again will require an empty house.

seamus wrote: »

We need to gut the housing market of small landlords; people who own a property or two on the side and have no business being in that position. They're a pox. We need our rental fleet to be operated by professional businesses, not half-arsed individuals.

I find it hard to believe people are till coming out with this despite it being quite obvious that big LL's are worse than smaller LL and a lot of people wishing for it are now wishing they could go back to a small LL. People who own a property or two are the life blood of the market and getting rid of them would be a disaster. Like any business you are much better dealing with the owner than some employee.