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
New Government rules for LLs when selling their property etc.
Options
Comments
-
All seems unworkable to me. Unless you don't apply the letter of the law. In which case what's the point of it. If they do apply the letter of the law it seems we are moving to a situation where you can't sell a property unless the tenant moves out.0
-
I know the Hennessy case...…..
You came up with your version after reading Hennessy?
Anyway the changes you describe in 2015 are below. Note the statutory declaration is in addition to the original text. It hasn't changed one word which could explain what you describe, or that what the judge stated is no longer relevant.
RTA Pre 2015
"The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling"
RTA Post 2015
"The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling and the notice of termination is accompanied by a statutory declaration referred to in section 35."
As you can see not one word refers to changing how intent is demonstrated. I hope no landlord would merely place a property on the market after signing a statutory declaration without taking legal advice.
You are right, I haven't commented on the merits, the plans for legislation are often poorly worded and further misunderstood by the media.0 -
If anyone wanted to close a sale of a property within 3 months after a tenant vacates, then it would need to be available for viewings many weeks in advance. How could that happen if a tenant would not agree to allow viewings and I can understand why they would refuse, it's extremely disruptive. Tenants are entitled to peaceful occupation.
We've moved several times and neither the properties that were sold or bought closed in 3 months, it's just not realistic.0 -
Some interesting comments in the media this week:
when stupid legislation is been proposed in the dail everybody wants a piece of the action you know it’s time for an election
And Pat Kenny to that shiner housing twat “so you want landlord to subsidize housing"
answer: well they (who are not building or investing any more) make big profits0 -
I think it is the intention to remove small landlords from the system. We're always hearing on this forum from small landlords who are saying they are getting out. But what isn't spoken about is how the REITs are now doubling down on their rental investments in huge numbers,
.....
So while small landlords might be leaving the sector these REITs are moving in big time. At stage it is obviously government policy, they just wont say so.
Spot on - however this is what they should do.
The accidental LLs are what ruins the market - the reits and large landlords have to follow the rules now and cant avoid it either (which is right of course) - and indeed in the case of the reits, the landlord is building the houses too(!). it’s the dream scenario for the Gov - gets properties built and professionalises the market to boot.
accidental LLs hate being Landlords to begin with, are more likely to be unregistered, one-property LLs are murdered on tax, but they like the idea of holding the asset and chase the capital appreciation. Being a LL is about yield, not appreciation. It’s the worst of both worlds from the Gov perspective.
However, that means the market will probably contract until it can expand again - accidental LLs have a great opportunity today to exit, now that rental rules are tightening and property prices are plateauing.
If they have one tenant go bad, they are out 100% of the asset income.
The investment risks for one-property accidental LLs are simply bizarre, and they account for 120k of the 170k registered LLs
(I’m a full time LL fyi)0 -
Advertisement
-
Reits came at the top of the market. Set top rents bought new and are not restricted by rpz at least for first rents. They are now expanding in to other areas. They been setting record high rents.
They've already needed legislation to stop mass evictions. We haven't heard the end of issues with reits in the future.0 -
Reits came at the top of the market. Set top rents bought new and are not restricted by rpz at least for first rents. They are now expanding in to other areas. They been setting record high rents.
They've already needed legislation to stop mass evictions. We haven't heard the end of issues with reits in the future.
All completely correct - but your first point is more important, they came in just in the past few years, they didn’t create the market.
I have places I bought at recession/post recession prices and the RPZ has now effectively locked-in rental rates that are strong yields - the RPZ changes only hurt long-standing LLs who were doing the right thing by not putting up rent on sitting tenants and were renting below market rates. They were suddenly snookered for doing the right thing0 -
Yeah these REITs are really making hay here while the individual landlord gets screwed with taxes. I remember back in 2013 one of the first large scale sales from NAMA to a REIT was when Kennedy Wilson bought the entire Gasworks development right behind Google in Dublin 4. I forget the total price but remember working it out that they had paid €115,000 per 2 bedroom apartment. Earlier this week I heard these apartments are now renting for €3,500-€4,000 per month. Kennedy Wilsons initial investment has long since been recouped and now they are absolutely creaming it on those 200 apartments alone. They have a further 2,000 odd units around the city too so this is really a boom for them now so its not surprising to see they are spending another half a billion acquiring more units.
And they can do it all with paying little or no tax. I mean I'm all for capitalism but that is just taking the complete p1ss while individual landlords are hit for 50% and USC on top.
This is not accidental . government policy for the past 7 years has been to push small landlords out and allow institutions free access to the market , this is tied directly back to our bailout and is a quid pro quo arrangement necessary to guarantee continued US multinational investment when Geithner insisted Ireland pay all bondholders.0 -
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.
This is the bit I can't understand that people are missing. The RPZ has forced small landlords to stick with only 4% rental increases because they are already renting. Yet the rent it Dublin is up by ~9% so the professionals are increasing the rental price yet the government and opposition thing they are doing some good, not to mention they pay feck all tax on the high income.I just cant understand why the local authorities just cant build houses.
They are handing millions over to landlords in HAP payments and this is an inefficent use of money. Is it because many TDs are landlords, this has been said but is it true.
And not to mention how much public money is wastefully going to prop up the numerous housing charities involved and yet nothing to show at the end of the day.
And something has to be done about those big consortiums buying up entire housing developments, who is behind this money and where are the rental receipts going.They are preventing young working couples getting a foot in the property market and effectively forcing these people to pay half their income in rent in some cases with no tax relief given.
There is so much rotten stuff at the core of the housing situation and the powerful have a vested interest in keeping housing supply low.
Have a look at the amount of rent, which is a set low percentage of income, owed to county or city councils and you'll see why they don't want to get into any more renting losing money. It's easier to let others take the non payments and then blame the bad private landlord for evicting them rather than the caring council, but the council will stop paying the Landlord HAP if the tenant doesn't pay their contribution to the council.0 -
This is the bit I can't understand that people are missing. The RPZ has forced small landlords to stick with only 4% rental increases because they are already renting. Yet the rent it Dublin is up by ~9% so the professionals are increasing the rental price yet the government and opposition thing they are doing some good, not to mention they pay feck all tax on the high income.
Have a look at the amount of rent, which is a set low percentage of income, owed to county or city councils and you'll see why they don't want to get into any more renting losing money. It's easier to let others take the non payments and then blame the bad private landlord for evicting them rather than the caring council, but the council will stop paying the Landlord HAP if the tenant doesn't pay their contribution to the council.
To answer your first part, the rents rise by more than 4% due to new properties being rented for the first time, or indeed LLs ignoring the 4%.
To add to your 2nd part, bear in mind the reits are buying land and building houses, and in return the gov give them tax breaks (or don’t push too hard for tax reforms).
In effect the landlord is creating their own product and their own market. They know the investment yield % before a brick is laid.
My own view here is that it’s fair game - we can’t have it every way. We want new houses but don’t want to pay for them and also the fragmented council admin nightmare of buying land, builders, tenders etc, never mind tenant admin.
Or they can just let the reits do it.
On the negative site, a friend had an apartment rented from a reit and every year he gets a letter with the 4% increase - as it’s a faceless organisation, they can get away with it. I deal with my tenants face to face, so i can’t justify a letter for an additional 4% every year, nor would i.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's a closed loop basically. The State needs a constant, large stream of money from private landlords (50% tax) to be able to subsidize social housing / hap because the same, large tax obligation cause the rents to spike so regular workers cannot afford to pay it and need social welfare assistance to subsidize their employment income. Higher the rents, higher the subsidies needed so more tax needed so higher the rents... The unbreakable wheel of socialist fortune.0
-
They solve that by building their own housing instead of out sourcing it to the private market. More supply and competition is what's needed to stop spiralling rents.0
-
Nothing. In. These new proposals regarding tenants who destroyed property, tenants who.dont pay. Tenants who refuse to move etc... its again the landlord bill.. If the risks were lower for.landlords the rent would reduce0
-
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.
Can I check are these new proposals or is this actual law right now? Its not clear from the article.0 -
I’d rather deal with the REIT; rented at The Alliance, Gasworks for 7.5 years. Water pump not working, 5pm on a Friday evening. “That’s the circuit board” replaces in less than an hour. Washer/dryer not working on a Tuesday, replacement installed on Thursday. Those which are well run (esp with short legs therefore additional staff) provide an excellent service for the price.To answer your first part, the rents rise by more than 4% due to new properties being rented for the first time, or indeed LLs ignoring the 4%.
To add to your 2nd part, bear in mind the reits are buying land and building houses, and in return the gov give them tax breaks (or don’t push too hard for tax reforms).
In effect the landlord is creating their own product and their own market. They know the investment yield % before a brick is laid.
My own view here is that it’s fair game - we can’t have it every way. We want new houses but don’t want to pay for them and also the fragmented council admin nightmare of buying land, builders, tenders etc, never mind tenant admin.
Or they can just let the reits do it.
On the negative site, a friend had an apartment rented from a reit and every year he gets a letter with the 4% increase - as it’s a faceless organisation, they can get away with it. I deal with my tenants face to face, so i can’t justify a letter for an additional 4% every year, nor would i.0 -
Ha, the cognitive dissonance of landlords complaining that they won't set up as companies because they pay less tax as an individual whilst simultaneously complaining that the system is rigged against individual landlords.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Ha, the cognitive dissonance of landlords complaining that they won't set up as companies because they pay less tax as an individual whilst simultaneously complaining that the system is rigged against individual landlords.
The system isn't rigged against anyone- its designed to treat different types of income streams in different manners. Historically- rental income (commercial or residential) has been treated as 'unearned income' by the recipient at taxed as such (while simultaneously not recognising any efforts or personal inputs associated with the endeavour).
There are some inequities associated with different types of landlords- such as the manner in which all local taxes are deductible as costs for a company- but not for an individual.
Yes- the landlords could go out tomorrow- and set up small companies- however, other than murkying tax matters- it wouldn't really do anything meaningful (at all) for either the landlords- or their tenants.
Its not fair to thumb your nose at small landlords, REITs or indeed tenants- and glory in whatever new found misery they find themselves in.
The latest proposals mean a defacto devaluation in the nominal value of any rental property in the country. This doesn't really mean anything- unless the owner is actually selling. Taken in conjunction with the other reforms- which are driving small landlords to the exit the sector- it can only be logically viewed as a sop to left wing politicians and the media- and a good kick at the scapegoat in the corner- when the entire system is rotten.
Its all well and good to treat small scale landlords as the evil scapegoats- and it suits politicians to have them tarred in this manner- as it detracts from the haemes they have made of the sector.
The various meddling in the sector- may make happy soundbites in the media- however, its going to make things a whole lot worse- before anything improves.
Be careful what you wish for- you just might get it..........0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »The system isn't rigged against anyone- its designed to treat different types of income streams in different manners. Historically- rental income (commercial or residential) has been treated as 'unearned income' by the recipient at taxed as such (while simultaneously not recognising any efforts or personal inputs associated with the endeavour).
There are some inequities associated with different types of landlords- such as the manner in which all local taxes are deductible as costs for a company- but not for an individual.
Yes- the landlords could go out tomorrow- and set up small companies- however, other than murkying tax matters- it wouldn't really do anything meaningful (at all) for either the landlords- or their tenants.
Its not fair to thumb your nose at small landlords, REITs or indeed tenants- and glory in whatever new found misery they find themselves in.
The latest proposals mean a defacto devaluation in the nominal value of any rental property in the country. This doesn't really mean anything- unless the owner is actually selling. Taken in conjunction with the other reforms- which are driving small landlords to the exit the sector- it can only be logically viewed as a sop to left wing politicians and the media- and a good kick at the scapegoat in the corner- when the entire system is rotten.
Its all well and good to treat small scale landlords as the evil scapegoats- and it suits politicians to have them tarred in this manner- as it detracts from the haemes they have made of the sector.
The various meddling in the sector- may make happy soundbites in the media- however, its going to make things a whole lot worse- before anything improves.
Be careful what you wish for- you just might get it..........
All that doesn't change the fact that landlords posting on boards frequently demand special treatment that isn't available to other SMEs.
I ran an Irish SME for over a decade, and had to pay for all the VAT filing, accounting fees, corp tax and so on. Why should landlords expect the same advantages as any other SME in terms of profit/loss treatment, classification of business expenses and so on, without any of the costs? It's completely unreasonable.
And I'm not thumbing my nose at anyone, I just find the special pleading irritating.0 -
All that doesn't change the fact that landlords posting on boards frequently demand special treatment that isn't available to other SMEs.
I ran an Irish SME for over a decade, and had to pay for all the VAT filing, accounting fees, corp tax and so on. Why should landlords expect the same advantages as any other SME in terms of profit/loss treatment, classification of business expenses and so on, without any of the costs? It's completely unreasonable.
And I'm not thumbing my nose at anyone, I just find the special pleading irritating.
Because it's not about landlords, but about tenants. It's about making rent affordable again. The tax policy has always been used to encourage specific behaviors and discourage other behaviors. A smart thing to do in order to encourage investment in rental accommodation would be to look into the tax obstacle.
At the end of the day, a private small investor who have some savings will not consider investing into a rental property if the tax on rental income is 50%
The only viable road for BTL investors is to get a mortgage and buy a property in poor condition, pay mortgage and refurbish over few years matching expenses against the income. Investing in a quality property with cash makes no economic sense. How else do you address that?
The second obvious improvement would be reducing the risks. Make it easier and faster to remove bad tenants. If the State owned a reserve of emergency accommodation it could make removal of bad/non paying tenants easier. Take the load off the affected landlord and move the obligation to support the tenant back on the State (where it should be). Three months areas in rents -> out to a State's designated emergency accommodation and housing agency takes it from there.
Expecting landlord to cover losses dragging for more then 3 months and forcing him to keep supporting the non-paying subject is mad, socially unfair and certainly doesn't help activating rental supply.0 -
I ran an Irish SME for over a decade, and had to pay for all the VAT filing, accounting fees, corp tax and so on.
Did the State force you to offer your services to non-paying business partners for an extra 18 months after they stopped paying for your services or goods?
Let's say you run a coffee shop. I keep coming every day, you make me a coffee and I don't pay and you can't refuse the service because of the law. For 18 months. Sounds encouraging to enter a coffee shop business?0 -
Advertisement
-
This bill also ensures that landlords never renovate during a tenancy.
Incredibly poor legislation, but hardly a surprise from the hard left.0 -
Did the State force you to offer your services to non-paying business partners for an extra 18 months after they stopped paying for your services or goods?
Let's say you run a coffee shop. I keep coming every day, you make me a coffee and I don't pay and you can't refuse the service because of the law. For 18 months. Sounds encouraging to enter a coffee shop business?
Those who offer professional services, where payment follows the work, often find themselves struggling to recoup their fees. For solicitors and the like that can easily amount to 18 months work.
If you provide services to indigent clients then you do so at the risk of not being able to recoup them. Blood cannot be extracted from a stone.
It would be nice to have a faster method for eviction, but nobody wants to resource the RTB and the Courts sufficiently to permit that. Removing the protections isn't an option given how widespread abuse by landlords herr is.0 -
Those who offer professional services, where payment follows the work, often find themselves struggling to recoup their fees. For solicitors and the like that can easily amount to 18 months work.
If you provide services to indigent clients then you do so at the risk of not being able to recoup them. Blood cannot be extracted from a stone.
It would be nice to have a faster method for eviction, but nobody wants to resource the RTB and the Courts sufficiently to permit that. Removing the protections isn't an option given how widespread abuse by landlords herr is.
If you don't pay your solicitor for his full month work, do you expect him to keep providing you free services for an extra 18 months?
If the state (taxpayer) does want to offer tenants protection that's fine. But then the state (taxpayer) should cover the costs.0 -
Those who offer professional services, where payment follows the work, often find themselves struggling to recoup their fees. For solicitors and the like that can easily amount to 18 months work.
If you provide services to indigent clients then you do so at the risk of not being able to recoup them. Blood cannot be extracted from a stone.
It would be nice to have a faster method for eviction, but nobody wants to resource the RTB and the Courts sufficiently to permit that. Removing the protections isn't an option given how widespread abuse by landlords herr is.
Blood cannot be extracted from a stone. That is very true. The state subsidises those who cannot afford to pay. There is no excuse for months of non-payment. For so long as we accept long term non-payment by scroungers, good tenants will pay above the odds to facilitate them.
It would be nice to have a faster method of eviction. This could be achieved by by-passing the need for the RTB at all. In the UK, 3 months arears is sufficient to gain an eviction directly from the Courts - without any need to waste RTB time with unnecessary hearings or appeals. The alternative is to allow the RTB to issue valid eviction orders, without needing to duplicate the process in the Courts.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Removing the protections isn't an option given how widespread abuse by landlords herr is.
The RTB disagree with this statement.
Abuse by either tenants or landlords are minority occurrences- and where cases are brought- a majority of them are by landlords against tenants (for non-payment of rent- overholding being the next category).
The media like to spin it that landlords are abusing tenants- however, and despite the RTBs obvious bias- more cases are both brought and won by landlords than by tenants.0 -
Blood cannot be extracted from a stone. That is very true. The state subsidises those who cannot afford to pay. There is no excuse for months of non-payment. For so long as we accept long term non-payment by scroungers, good tenants will pay above the odds to facilitate them.
It would be nice to have a faster method of eviction. This could be achieved by by-passing the need for the RTB at all. In the UK, 3 months arears is sufficient to gain an eviction directly from the Courts - without any need to waste RTB time with unnecessary hearings or appeals. The alternative is to allow the RTB to issue valid eviction orders, without needing to duplicate the process in the Courts.
The point of having the RTB hear disputes, rather than the Courts, is to ensure that tenants who are seldom in a position to pay a solicitor are not simply steamrolled by landlords who are. The same logic underlies most quasi-judicial bodies, such as the WRC.If you don't pay your solicitor for his full month work, do you expect him to keep providing you free services for an extra 18 months?
If the state (taxpayer) does want to offer tenants protection that's fine. But then the state (taxpayer) should cover the costs.
I've had friends fail to recover fees for 18 months work. Businesses regularly go under as a result of a debtor being unable to pay. These are the hazards of doing business in a wide variety of fields, from professional services to construction. Not everybody is paid on an ongoing basis.
Even employees can find themselves at the sharp end of this problem, with judgments for underpayment of wages being impossible to enforce where assets aren't available to be seized.The_Conductor wrote: »The RTB disagree with this statement.
Abuse by either tenants or landlords are minority occurrences- and where cases are brought- a majority of them are by landlords against tenants (for non-payment of rent- overholding being the next category).
The media like to spin it that landlords are abusing tenants- however, and despite the RTBs obvious bias- more cases are both brought and won by landlords than by tenants.
All law breaking is a minority occurrence. That is not an argument to remove laws.
One would never expect more than a tiny percentage of any service provider to come to the attention of an enforcement body. When you compare the number of landlords coming to the attention of the RTB to the number of employers coming to the attention of the WRC, the number of professionals coming to the attention of the governing bodies, then the widespread nature of the abuse emerges.
You are incorrect in saying that the majority of cases are brought by landlords against tenants - 63% are brought by tenants. There were 1,547 cases of overholding &/ rent arrears in the last year for which figures are available (2017). That is the largest category, but only slightly with 1,505 cases of invalid notice of termination being brought against landlords and a further 1,234 cases of deposit retention.
Most cases are brought by tenants. A significant number are successful. 77% of all cases relating to notice of rent review are successful. 77% of all cases where the refunding of a deposit was at issue were fully successful, with a further 15% being partially successful. 41% of invalid notice of termination cases are successful.
And of course, despite the narrative here that cases take years to conclude, only 13% of cases go on longer than 5 months, with about half concluding in the first 2 months.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »The system isn't rigged against anyone- its designed to treat different types of income streams in different manners. Historically- rental income (commercial or residential) has been treated as 'unearned income' by the recipient at taxed as such (while simultaneously not recognising any efforts or personal inputs associated with the endeavour).
There are some inequities associated with different types of landlords- such as the manner in which all local taxes are deductible as costs for a company- but not for an individual.
Yes- the landlords could go out tomorrow- and set up small companies- however, other than murkying tax matters- it wouldn't really do anything meaningful (at all) for either the landlords- or their tenants.
Its not fair to thumb your nose at small landlords, REITs or indeed tenants- and glory in whatever new found misery they find themselves in.
The latest proposals mean a defacto devaluation in the nominal value of any rental property in the country. This doesn't really mean anything- unless the owner is actually selling. Taken in conjunction with the other reforms- which are driving small landlords to the exit the sector- it can only be logically viewed as a sop to left wing politicians and the media- and a good kick at the scapegoat in the corner- when the entire system is rotten.
Its all well and good to treat small scale landlords as the evil scapegoats- and it suits politicians to have them tarred in this manner- as it detracts from the haemes they have made of the sector.
The various meddling in the sector- may make happy soundbites in the media- however, its going to make things a whole lot worse- before anything improves.
Be careful what you wish for- you just might get it..........
I’m sorry but your comments re taxation are not well founded. In a personal context, other than for PRSI, there is no distinction as to the rate at which earned and unearned income is taxed. What would a landlord claim for his time in running the business? That is his activity no different from a shop keeper.
Other than for the treatment of REITs which are not taxable bodies or securitisation vehicles, a property owning company is subject to the same computational rules as an individual landlord, ie the rules of case V of schedule D. It is not correct to suggest that taxes are deductible for corporate landlirds and not individual ones.
Your post presents itself as erudite when is is simply seafóid as my dear granny would have said.0 -
Blood cannot be extracted from a stone. That is very true. The state subsidises those who cannot afford to pay. There is no excuse for months of non-payment. For so long as we accept long term non-payment by scroungers, good tenants will pay above the odds to facilitate them.
It would be nice to have a faster method of eviction. This could be achieved by by-passing the need for the RTB at all. In the UK, 3 months arears is sufficient to gain an eviction directly from the Courts - without any need to waste RTB time with unnecessary hearings or appeals. The alternative is to allow the RTB to issue valid eviction orders, without needing to duplicate the process in the Courts.
The point of having the RTB hear disputes, rather than the Courts, is to ensure that tenants who are seldom in a position to pay a solicitor are not simply steamrolled by landlords who are. The same logic underlies most quasi-judicial bodies, such as the WRC.If you don't pay your solicitor for his full month work, do you expect him to keep providing you free services for an extra 18 months?
If the state (taxpayer) does want to offer tenants protection that's fine. But then the state (taxpayer) should cover the costs.
I've had friends fail to recover fees for 18 months work. Businesses regularly go under as a result of a debtor being unable to pay. These are the hazards of doing business in a wide variety of fields, from professional services to construction. Not everybody is paid on an ongoing basis.
Even employees can find themselves at the sharp end of this problem, with judgments for underpayment of wages being impossible to enforce where assets aren't available to be seized.The_Conductor wrote: »The RTB disagree with this statement.
Abuse by either tenants or landlords are minority occurrences- and where cases are brought- a majority of them are by landlords against tenants (for non-payment of rent- overholding being the next category).
The media like to spin it that landlords are abusing tenants- however, and despite the RTBs obvious bias- more cases are both brought and won by landlords than by tenants.
All law breaking is a minority occurrence. That is not an argument to remove laws.
One would never expect more than a tiny percentage of any service provider to come to the attention of an enforcement body. When you compare the number of landlords coming to the attention of the RTB to the number of employers coming to the attention of the WRC, the number of professionals coming to the attention of the governing bodies, then the widespread nature of the abuse emerges.
You are incorrect in saying that the majority of cases are brought by landlords against tenants - 63% are brought by tenants. There were 1,547 cases of overholding &/ rent arrears in the last year for which figures are available (2017). That is the largest category, but only slightly with 1,505 cases of invalid notice of termination being brought against landlords and a further 1,234 cases of deposit retention.
Most cases are brought by tenants. A significant number are successful. 77% of all cases relating to notice of rent review are successful. 77% of all cases where the refunding of a deposit was at issue were fully successful, with a further 15% being partially successful. 41% of invalid notice of termination cases are successful.
And of course, despite the narrative here that cases take years to conclude, only 13% of cases go on longer than 5 months, with about half concluding in the first 2 months.
The point about non payment elsewhere outside being a landlord is that if I run a company that has a customer not paying - you can stop supplying them.
You aren't obliged to keep supplying the non paying customer.0 -
Did the State force you to offer your services to non-paying business partners for an extra 18 months after they stopped paying for your services or goods?
Let's say you run a coffee shop. I keep coming every day, you make me a coffee and I don't pay and you can't refuse the service because of the law. For 18 months. Sounds encouraging to enter a coffee shop business?
They didn’t but they provide him with a similarly ineffective method of recovering money from defaulting customers as for tenants. If a landlord wants to regard himself as a business then he must appraise the risks - there have always been defaulting and overholding tenants. I wonder if it is truly worse now than before. This is the landlird’s business risk.0 -
Advertisement
-
Old diesel wrote: »The point about non payment elsewhere outside being a landlord is that if I run a company that has a customer not paying - you can stop supplying them.
You aren't obliged to keep supplying the non paying customer.
It’s not that simple, lots of businesses supply goods and services for payment later. Look at subcontractors in the construction industry. See how many were unpaid when Carillion went under on government contracts for school buildings. These are the risks of business, not all businesses receive cash at the point of sale.0
Advertisement