Eviction Ban extended

brisan

Panch18 wrote: »

I fail to see how the government imposing totally unnecessary and restrictive and prohibitive laws which are unjustifiable are a cost of doing business

It’s ridiculous

They were not unjustifible to the Government or the opposition at the time or to the majority of people in the country.
There were very few dissenting voices at the time

redarmyblues

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0720/1154476-eviction-ban-cabinet/

Ban extended till 1st August.

lawrencesummers

It over due time for the PRTB act on behalf of landlords as well as tenants.

There should be a system in place where landlords can check with the PRTB that a tenant has had a previous tenancy and if any complaints are registered and upheld against them

Dav010

brisan wrote: »

There were very few dissenting voices at the time

Perhaps at the time people could see that it was for the greater good particularly during lockdown when people’s movements were severely restricted on health grounds. That argument is less justified now, as the AG has pointed out since the restrictions were lifted.

Personally I see absolutely no point in lifting the rent freeze while banning evictions, it won’t take a lot of lateral thinking on a tenants part to avoid any increase. I can only assume it was lifted on the advice of the AG rather than any willingness by the Government.

Graham

While I agree the state needs to provide support to struggling tenants, I don't think forcing landlords to be de facto social welfare providers is a sensible solution.

redarmyblues

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It over due time for the PRTB act on behalf of landlords as well as tenants.

There should be a system in place where landlords can check with the PRTB that a tenant has had a previous tenancy and if any complaints are registered and upheld against them

There is a searchable database, so the determinations and adjudications are a matter of public record.

brisan

Manion wrote: »

Again you realise you're talking to a homeless person? When it suits it's a business and when it doesn't it's people's homes. Seems the side people are on flips depending on whats convenient. I've sympathy for anybody he ends up homeless regardess of how that happens.

As I said I have sympathy for him
He is an accidental landlord who got caught in an unfortunate position.
He done the right thing by charging less than market rates and that has come back to haunt him.
Its not a situation of his making but neither did the tenant create the situation.
However the fact that the tenant is in arrears pre covid means the chances of getting him to leave are slim
I know a landlord with six properties in the same complex.
2 have not paid rent since 1st March and this week 2 have told him they are leaving at the end of the month ,one moving down the country and 1 going home (abroad.
So for Aug is down 75% of his income plus having to renovate and re advertise 2 properties.
He reckons the chance of getting rent from the 2 non payers are non existent.
they could refuse to pay till January and there is not a lot he can do .
They can then leave having saved 12 k each

david72jenkins

Agree wrt forcing landlords, but that's the situation government has created, making it someone else problem is their 'success'.

lawrencesummers

redarmyblues wrote: »

There is a searchable database, so the determinations and adjudications are a matter of public record.

It’s not good enough.

redarmyblues

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It’s not good enough.

Why not?

Elessar

While I understand why the government have to do this, and I feel for the genuine tenants in difficulty, surely the eviction ban is unconstitutional and would be struck down in a court?

Preventing property owners from the ability to sell or transfer to someone else is in direct opposition to article 43 of the constitution:

The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

However, interestingly it also says:

The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

I wonder how the Supreme Court would interpret this

Blut2

Extending the eviction ban for 5 and a half months is one go is insane, especially given no tenant will be out instantly come January 1st - it'll more likely be February, so 6+ months away. Any problem tenant now is extremely secure, they know they can get 6 months of free rent! Happy days for them.

Its ominous also because it suggests the government is planning on keeping large sections of the economy shut down until then. Thats the reason the eviction ban is in place - so nobody currently being forced not to work because of lockdown restrictions gets evicted.

redarmyblues

Blut2 wrote: »

Extending the eviction ban for 5 and a half months is one go is insane, especially given no tenant will be out instantly come January 1st - it'll more likely be February, so 6+ months away. Any problem tenant now is extremely secure, they know they can get 6 months of free rent! Happy days for them.

Its ominous also because it suggests the government is planning on keeping large sections of the economy shut down until then. Thats the reason the eviction ban is in place - so nobody currently being forced not to work because of lockdown restrictions gets evicted.

It was extended to the first of August

redarmyblues

Elessar wrote: »

While I understand why the government have to do this, and I feel for the genuine tenants in difficulty, surely the eviction ban is unconstitutional and would be struck down in a court?

Preventing property owners from the ability to sell or transfer to someone else is in direct opposition to article 43 of the constitution:



However, interestingly it also says:


I wonder how the Supreme Court would interpret this

I would hope that people who exploit the CV19 crisis for their own selfish ends would be excluded from the common good.

the_syco

brisan wrote: »

Its a cost of doing business

Unfortunately, the landlord is not allowed to treat it as business.

Graham wrote: »

I don't think forcing landlords to be de facto social welfare providers is a sensible solution.

I wonder will this actually cause a mass exodus of landlords?

redarmyblues wrote: »

There is a searchable database, so the determinations and adjudications are a matter of public record.

Aren't you still able to remove your name from it?

david72jenkins

beauf wrote: »

Well there's a mental health aspect.

I was thinking about the mental health aspect as I lay awake until 4.30 this morning not being able to sleep, not knowing when I am going to be able to return to my home, similar to most things related to renting in the Covid era, mental health appears to be a consideration only from the tenant perspective

redarmyblues

the_syco wrote: »

Aren't you still able to remove your name from it?

There is a right to be forgotten but it is highly restrictive and I don't believe you can have it removed so you can continue a merry maraud around the rental sector. There are a bunch of people out there who are baffled by the inability to get viewings never mind leases not realizing that the potential LL has informed themselves of their previous depredations as tenants.

JimmyVik

david72jenkins wrote: »

Hi Panch18, I do feel your frustration but the emotive words thing cuts both ways.

For me, I will have a conversation with my tenant later in the week, he 'holds all the cards' with respect to him not having to vacate but I am hoping that we can see each others point of view and come to a mutual arrangement even if it is a bit further away than was originally anticipated.

So you are renting your house out to someone who will not move out. You are paying tax on the rent that they pay you.
The least that should be allowed is that you can offset that tax against the rent you would have to pay to live somewhere yourself.
But the sorry state of affairs is that the government get tax from the rent you receive and also will get tax from the rent you will have to pay. Thats just the way they like it. They are screwing you to the wall.

JimmyVik

redarmyblues wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

Aren't you still able to remove your name from it?

There is a right to be forgotten but it is highly restrictive and I don't believe you can have it removed so you can continue a merry maraud around the rental sector. There are a bunch of people out there who are baffled by the inability to get viewings never mind leases not realizing that the potential LL has informed themselves of their previous depredations as tenants.

I now people who are saving every determination and case to a google drive and sharing it around.
So even if the names are removed from the main register as long as you download them as they appear then you will always have them.
Or you just just get a share of that google drive

rightmove

david72jenkins wrote: »

I was thinking about the mental health aspect as I lay awake until 4.30 this morning not being able to sleep, not knowing when I am going to be able to return to my home, similar to most things related to renting in the Covid era, mental health appears to be a consideration only from the tenant perspective

no one gives a damn about the LL. Small LL are the victims here and although I got out a year ago what has been happening in the last few months has really angered me. How a government can treat property owners almost like criminals is beyond me. The tenant is sleeping happy knowing they cannot be evicted and paying the rent is discretionary. I was both a tenant and a LL at the same time. When LL sold it was stressful but it was his right to do so and I knew this. But when you are a LL trying to get back you asset from a rogue tenant it takes months and months of elongated sleepless nights. Our TDs are a disgrace really pandering to the lowest common populist sh*te whilst ignoring the integrity of the contracts between tenant and LL with a biased RTB and unconstitutional measures. I am out but not in any way satisfied!

Pkiernan

Funny how the same people who have no issues with 18 year old part time shop assistants getting a 350 a week Covid payment are vehemently opposed to the Governemt indemnifying landlords againt non paying tenants they are forced to house for free.

Doesn't really add up.

david72jenkins

I can't speak for the past but IMHO the current situation has been 'engineered' to create the situation that exists. It would appear that the government is 'comfortable' creating homelessness as long as the result of that creation has as minimal as possible financial impact on the government. In other words interpreting the 'common good' as the tenants interests are above that of the property owner, this 'fits' nicely with the evil LL predisposition.

I am fast reaching the conclusion the this 'common good' needs to be tested but am not sure as to how to go about it as I do not believe that an individual would be in a position to take this on themselves as justice does not come cheap as a result this injustice will continue for however long.

The conclusion I and others have come to is that this is no longer about public health and more about government finances, the fact that the financial risk has been transferred to the LL is goodness from a government perspective.

WeeCuppaCha

https://www.newstalk.com/shows/newstalk-breakfast-234855

Eoin vs Brendan interview. I’m none the wiser.

perfectkama

no politician has mentioned LLs in this pandemic they dont evict for no reason
However the 2 communists murphy and o brien continuously look for tenant rights calling out the AG as a fg puppet is disgraceful the pair of muppets deserve other attention.

mrslancaster

Minister O'Brien on radio earlier said the extension of the rent & eviction freeze is just an extension of the Covid emergency measures but he plans to bring more robust legislation on tenants rights into law before 1st August.

He said there will be a "seamless transition" and the new legislation will give more permanent protection & procedures for anyone in arrears. it will also protect against evictions in certain circumstances as well as for anyone who lost their jobs or had a cut in wages.

godtabh

mrslancaster wrote: »

Minister O'Brien on radio earlier said the extension of the rent & eviction freeze is just an extension of the Covid emergency measures but he plans to bring more robust legislation on tenants rights into law before 1st August.

He said there will be a "seamless transition" and the new legislation will give more permanent protection & procedures for anyone in arrears. it will also protect against evictions in certain circumstances as well as for anyone who lost their jobs or had a cut in wages.

So I have a job and rent the place. I move in and jack in the job the next day. I live rent feee and get my dole and the LL can do sweet FA?

JimmyVik

david72jenkins wrote: »

I can't speak for the past but IMHO the current situation has been 'engineered' to create the situation that exists. It would appear that the government is 'comfortable' creating homelessness as long as the result of that creation has as minimal as possible financial impact on the government. In other words interpreting the 'common good' as the tenants interests are above that of the property owner, this 'fits' nicely with the evil LL predisposition.

I am fast reaching the conclusion the this 'common good' needs to be tested but am not sure as to how to go about it as I do not believe that an individual would be in a position to take this on themselves as justice does not come cheap as a result this injustice will continue for however long.

The conclusion I and others have come to is that this is no longer about public health and more about government finances, the fact that the financial risk has been transferred to the LL is goodness from a government perspective.

Wouldnt surprise me if landlords could sue the government for loses and damages due to the unfair way they have been kicked around the place by said government.
But if anyone sticks their head above the parapet, they will be hounded and bullied by the media and the twitterazi bullies for the rest of their lives. We live in the age of mob rule.

brisan

Graham wrote: »

Which insurance company stated pandemics were a cost of doing business?

https://www.drinksindustryireland.ie/fbd-allianz-not-paying-out-on-covid-19-claims/

mrslancaster

JimmyVik wrote: »

Wouldnt surprise me if landlords could sue the government for loses and damages due to the unfair way they have been kicked around the place by said government.
But if anyone sticks their head above the parapet, they will be hounded and bullied by the media and the twitterazi bullies for the rest of their lives. We live in the age of mob rule.

Bad landlords get bad headlines & nobody has an issue with that but it paints all landlords with the same brush & newspapers love running those headlines. It doesn't seem to register with politicians & the media that landlords provide much needed accommodation.
I have read many times on here that landlords have sold up because of all the changes. Will this new legislation do anything to stop that if it gives tenants more rights & restricts the rights of the landlord?

Varik

brisan wrote: »

https://www.drinksindustryireland.ie/fbd-allianz-not-paying-out-on-covid-19-claims/

So to summarise no one said it.