New Government rules for LLs when selling their property etc.

Spanish Eyes

Just saw this earlier.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/landlords-who-end-tenancy-to-sell-must-sign-contracts-within-nine-months-1.3849873

I am presuming this is designed to ensure that LLs who evict in order to sell actually follow through on the sale. Although I thought there were already measures in place to stop this. Puzzled.

There are tightening up of other rules too.

Wondered if this is an amendment to LL/Tenant law or a regulation or what? Hadn't heard about it until today.

hmmm

The effect as ever will be to reduce supply by making renting less attractive. I'm baffled by what the government strategy is.

The thing to have done was to get massive amounts of new rental stock into the market through corporate landlords, and then drive the small landlord out (if that was the intention). Not do it now.

garhjw

More bureaucracy

Benny Biscotti

hmmm wrote: »

The effect as ever will be to reduce supply by making renting less attractive. I'm baffled by what the government strategy is.

The thing to have done was to get massive amounts of new rental stock into the market through corporate landlords, and then drive the small landlord out (if that was the intention). Not do it now.

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

DubCount

I'm not sure when it happened, but as some point, official Ireland decided that the obligation to provide housing should fall on landlords, whether or not they get paid, whether or not they can afford it, whether or not they want to.

If I want to become a retailer, I can open a shop. If its not working out, I can close the shop. If I become a landlord, I'm expected to keep being a landlord forever.

We have a lack of supply of accommodation. We have a particular lack of supply of rental accommodation. These rule changes only serve to encourage existing landlords to leave the market, and discourages new landlords from entering the market.

Politicians need to understand the responsibility to providing accommodation is their responsibility, not landlords. If the state wants more rental property, the state should encourage landlordism, or directly enter the landlord business themselves. Trying to keep landlords in the market through the use of force, will ultimately fail.

hmmm

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

Because it feeds into the mood music that the government is anti-landlord. A lot of people who are maybe considering becoming landlords are going to see that this is a one-way street, and who knows what comes next - maybe the government will do what it's being urged to do by some people and actually prevent landlords from removing tenants at all, who knows.

The number one issue for landlords is, from what I hear, the ability to quickly remove bad tenants. No attention is being given to this.

We should be leaving populism to SF and the other hurdy gurdy political parties, and stop with the quick fixes which we know will do the opposite of what is intended. The number of people affected by unscrupulous landlords claiming to sell up when they aren't is very small, whereas the impact on reducing supply is likely to be much higher.

voluntary

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

It's scaring off potential new entrants to the market. Landlords will always be selling, the key is to have new landlords replacing old ones. More restrictions you impose on a specific business, less attractive it become. I don't need to explain what reducing competition means for the customer (tenant in this case).

GGTrek

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just saw this earlier.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/landlords-who-end-tenancy-to-sell-must-sign-contracts-within-nine-months-1.3849873

I am presuming this is designed to ensure that LLs who evict in order to sell actually follow through on the sale. Although I thought there were already measures in place to stop this. Puzzled.

There are tightening up of other rules too.

Wondered if this is an amendment to LL/Tenant law or a regulation or what? Hadn't heard about it until today.

It was all announced by Murphy at the Oireachtas debate that I posted in this forum on the 22nd of January:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109216453&postcount=3


"As mentioned, I intend to examine the need to introduce further amendments to the existing tenancy termination provisions. My intention is for the existing grounds for tenancy termination by a landlord to be carefully examined by the Department and the Office of the Attorney General with a view to bringing forward any necessary amendments to tighten and enhance legally the operation of relevant provisions and to empower greater enforcement of the provisions by the RTB.

Another area that needs urgent attention by my Department and the Office of the Attorney General is the operation of rent pressure zones in the short to medium term. I imagine Deputies are aware that my three-year designation of the Dublin local authority areas and that of Cork City will expire in December 2019 as rent pressure zones. Active consideration is being given to what amendments might need to be included in this Bill to ensure that, come 2020, tenants will not be hit with astronomical rent hikes. The opportunity is being taken to examine what other changes are needed to the operation of the rent pressure zones and related exemptions. We will need to introduce amendments, but for now I simply wish to flag to the House and to the sector that these changes will be coming."

BTW: Yes, to perform this the Oireachtas will have to change the statute (AGAIN) through the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2018

Maya22

Is this enacted immediately or is it planned for a few months down the line? Gave my tenants notice months ago for a substantial refurb (serious renovations, gutting the place, walls and all). Should we still go ahead? As far as I’m aware, we meet all the criteria but the goalposts keep being moved

handlemaster

Just more BS. Tenants will end up paying for the higher risk landlords take on actually renting out property. In particular any new landlords coming into the market

The_Conductor

All this does- is remove further small landlords and houses from the system- in favour of large REITs and apartments (esp. in the Dublin area).
If this is the intention- it will succeed- if not- well, people on the sidelines cheering haven't done their homework properly.

Roll on the RTB annual report (July-Aug)- we need to keep an eye on the evolution of landlords, tenancies and property types in the Irish market.
All they've done the last few years- is play with the stats- to minimise the obviousness of the exit of small landlords and houses from the market- by bringing the housing associations onboard in a manner to hide the exodus. That particular rabbit has been well and truly cooked, lets see whats next out of the hat.

beauf

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

It's more the worry what will they do next.

LuckyLloyd

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

ted1

No issue with any of the changes*

*provided they make it possible to quickly evict tenants who don’t pay rent. Or cause anti social issues

ted1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

Landlords selling will be u fee pressure to sell within 9 months and may feel obliged to take a lower offer.

3DataModem

Some interesting thoughts on rent control

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/

beauf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

You think having no means of removing tenants will encourage people to become/stay landlords. You think constantly changing the rules will do the same. I guess the option if you don't like the rules is to sell up while you're still allowed to. They will stop that soon too.

DubCount

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should this scare people off becoming landlords? I assume no-one here would issue a notice stating intention to sell as a loophole to get tenants out and bypass RPZ rules...right?

Issuing a notice to terminate for the purpose of selling is not a way around RPZ rules. Even after the property is sold, the RPZ restrictions stay with the property and are taken on by the new purchaser.

There is already a requirement to sign a Statutory Declaration when issuing a notice to quit for the purpose of a sale. Why is that not sufficient to stop any blaggarding.

9 months may be long enough in many circumstances. What happens if a property is in a rural location with a slower property market or is a very high end property which again can move slowly. I've recently had a property sale held up for 6 months alone by a mapping error in the land registry. Why is 9 months plucked out of thin air and considered reasonable for the entire market?

Overall, this is just another squeeze on landlords who have have seen a procession of legislation changes designed to make it harder to leave the market, and harder to stay in the market. When was the last time the Irish media, housing charities, or any politician talked about proposals in favor of landlords in stead of tenants? What about creating an faster process for evicting non-paying or anti-social tenants? There are no politicians adding that type of thing to the proposed legislation to balance the continuing increase in tenant rights.

voluntary

Landlords who terminate a tenancy because they intend to sell a property will now have to enter into a contract for sale within nine months of the date of termination, or offer to re-let the property to a former tenant if not.

https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-government-new-rent-laws-april-2019-4577322-Apr2019/

So a tenant moves out, you spend 2 months renovating and preparing the sale, then engage an EA etc. You've 7 months left. Trying to find a buyer, which can take even 12 months, but let's assume it takes only 5 months. You found a buyer and go Sale Agreed, but as this is a chain transaction, it takes another 5 months to complete. The worse case scenario is buying from a bank, as the process from SA to signing a contract may take over 1 year in some cases.

So what then, let's say you go Sale Agreed (or maybe not yet), 9 months passes and you get a choice. You offer the house back to the former tenant for rent, or face large penalties because you didn't find a buyer on time?

Do they have any brains in this government?


The effect of such legislation: private landlords running away from the business in even larger numbers = even less rental properties on the market. The only winner here is REITS as their competition from the private market is being effectively shut down by the legislation.

3DataModem

The thing about this rule (and other "offer for re-let" rules) is in the detail.

You send a registered letter to the forwarding address provided stating "let me know if interested within the next 28 days".

Some tenants won't give you a forwarding address - to avoid any overdue bills being redirected - so you are left with the address they gave you on the lease when they moved in. Some tenants forwarding address is unreliable, it could be a family home that they don't visit much etc.

And of course most ex-tenants won't be able to act on such an offer within a reasonable time period (say, 28 days) so the landlord who abuses this rule can have some comfort that they are more or less off the hook.

Unless of course a tenant is specifically waiting for the nine-month sale window to expire, but I cannot imagine that will be a significant number.

Another lovely-sounding rule with zero teeth, easily circumvented by the bad actors.

voluntary

3DataModem wrote: »

Unless of course a tenant is specifically waiting for the nine-month sale window to expire, but I cannot imagine that will be a significant number.

Let's say tenants rents for 800, which is well under the market rates. The landlord kicks him out, he finds a new place, for 1800 this time. 9 months later, he gets an offer of going back to the old place for 800 pm. He would be stupid not to take it.


What happens to landlord who genuinely tries to sell his house, but doesn't complete in 9 months?

Samuel T. Cogley

I thought the current rule was actually 6 months for sale.

Thephantomsmask

DubCount wrote: »

Issuing a notice to terminate for the purpose of selling is not a way around RPZ rules. Even after the property is sold, the RPZ restrictions stay with the property and are taken on by the new purchaser.

There is already a requirement to sign a Statutory Declaration when issuing a notice to quit for the purpose of a sale. Why is that not sufficient to stop any blaggarding.

Because the cost of a statutory declaration from a solicitor will easily be recouped in the rent hike when the property is back up on daft 2 weeks later. If it were any deterrent then I wouldn't currently be chasing an ex landlord through the court to enforce the damages awarded by the RTB for exactly that scenario, pretending to sell to bypass the RPZ.

beauf

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

Because the cost of a statutory declaration from a solicitor will easily be recouped in the rent hike when the property is back up on daft 2 weeks later. If it were any deterrent then I wouldn't currently be chasing an ex landlord through the court to enforce the damages awarded by the RTB for exactly that scenario, pretending to sell to bypass the RPZ.

How would any of these changes change the requirement to go to court. It won't.

pc7

Focus Ireland on Morning Ireland want it brought it that there is a moratorium on landlords being able to sell, their proposal is that they can only sell if the tenant is left in place. Sweet suffering Jebus I can't think of any other market with so much interference and meddling.

Thephantomsmask

I never said it would remove the need to go to court, simply answering your point that current rules should be enough to stop blaggarding. They aren't, landlords simply hope the ex tenants won't bother following it up. A statutory declaration is meaningless, the RTB cannot act on them and nobody is going to waste their time and money trying to get a criminal conviction for breach of it.

I would be in favour of keeping the current rules and tougher sanctions for the people breaking them. Currently the landlord cannot even be forced to charge the new tenants the appropriate rent rate, on foot of a complaint by the ex tenants, unless they complain themselves. They aren't going to do that for fear of a sudden need for a family member to move in or some other excuse to get rid of them.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

The effect as ever will be to reduce supply by making renting less attractive. I'm baffled by what the government strategy is.

The thing to have done was to get massive amounts of new rental stock into the market through corporate landlords, and then drive the small landlord out (if that was the intention). Not do it now.

I’d look at as a positive step in that these properties would be purchased as private dwellings, thereby freeing up their previous homes for rent/sale.

tretorn

pc7 wrote: »

Focus Ireland on Morning Ireland want it brought it that there is a moratorium on landlords being able to sell, their proposal is that they can only sell if the tenant is left in place. Sweet suffering Jebus I can't think of any other market with so much interference and meddling.

I have never heard such nonsense, who would buy a house with sitting tenants in place unless they got the property for half nothing.

If a landlord is selling its more than likely its because prices are high at the moment so he wants to get out before prices crash. He will have to limited buyer interest with sitting tenants and this is discriminating against him purely because he is a landlord. These provisions are massively affecting landlords constitutional rights regarding their property.

I am so glad my tenants are gone and I will never let my house again. My tenants told me they had found a house and next text was to say the key was in the porch and they were gone, I have no idea where so if bills were unpaid I would have nowhere to send them.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

I’d look at as a positive step in that these properties would be purchased as private dwellings, thereby freeing up their previous homes for rent/sale.

Supply of new builds is slowly improving. That's what will make a difference. As they can set high rents people will still rent them out. So more stock is available but rents still rising because supply is from new properties coming to market. Older properties with cheaper rents will leave the rental market.

beauf

tretorn wrote: »

I have never heard such nonsense, who would buy a house with sitting tenants in place unless they got the property for half nothing...

Exactly. Which why RPZ effect houses prices.
They won't return to rental either as their rents are too low.

Fol20

Benny Biscotti wrote: »

How is this law driving the landlords out if the landlord is selling up anyway? 9 months plus notice period is plenty of time to sell a house.

Not really. Your going to wait until the tenant leaves before you advertise so you can clean it up and maybe out a new lick of paint on the place. The quickest i have ever heard a deal take place is 3 months after you may have advertised for 2-4 weeks.thats already 4 months without issues. Sprinkle ina few issues and this can easily go above 9 months