Security of Tenure for Tenants

TheChizler

Dav010 wrote: »

To be fair, tenancy legislation does tilt heavily in to the tenants advantage, making it impossible for a LL to live in or sell their home would make it less likely that investors would buy properties, decreasing stock even further.

If the landlord isn't living in it it's not their home. It's their property, and the tenant's home.

Fol20

jrosen wrote: »

Id love a reduction in tax lol Wouldnt we all.

I know the agent who we use to manage our property advises against long term leases. She said its too hard for the landlord to get out of if they need too. So we do year on year with our tenants.

Leases actually mean nothing for landlords other than the rules they cannot break. I would favour long term leases only for the fact that if a tenant even signs a 1 year lease and 3 months in. They say they want to reassign the lease. This isn’t viewed as breaking it and they are entitled to a full refund of the deposit. If you sign a contract for a period of time. You should be locked in yet tenants still have an easy way out while ll do not. Make it equitable on both parties first before talking about long term leases.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Nope. I would agree with cancellation terms of some sort but to suggest someone is on the hook for 3 to 5 years rent is ludicrous.
Loads of countries offer secure long term tenancies and landlords don't suffer and do well out of it, why should Ireland be different.
The security of knowing you have a roof over your head cannot be compared or equated with the security for someone to pay you for the service you offer imho.

Funny how you have no ability to compromise on the situation. Tenant shouldn’t have to give too much notice even if they break a contract yet at the same time ll needs to follow it completely - just think about what you are saying for a minute and try and come up with a fair way where both parties don’t get shafted.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I've said repeatedly that it is contingent on the tenant abiding by the contract, which means paying the rent

But you just said the following:

""
Nope. I would agree with cancellation terms of some sort but to suggest someone is on the hook for 3 to 5 years rent is ludicrous.
""

Does the above mean that they do not have to abide by the long term contract they signed?

Im interested to hear what your take on what you said is as your giving off mixed signals on what you want.

Fol20

jrosen wrote: »

So if a tenancy should be for life, or as long as the tenant chooses you believe a landlord should be forced to remain a landlord? What if that landlord needs to sell the property, what if that landlord needs to move back into the house? It shouldn't be allowed if the tenant wants to stay?

Another factor the OP hasnt account for here is that if you sell a property with tenants in situ, it severely devalues the property for the owner as you can then only sell to other investors(IE you have gone from 100pc of the market to maybe 10pc of prospective buyers) Given the fact the person the renter doesnt own it and could literally decide to leave next month if they wanted while the ll has put time,money,sweath, risk and debt into it, is it fair to the ll that they could be down 10-30pc of market price due to this?

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Already addressed that. They can sell but the property is sold as a buy to let.
For me, if you are in the house letting business, you need to understand the importance of what you are providing to someone, we need to get away from this idea that the tenant is just paying your mortgage til you decide they aren't anymore. Just my take on it.

You literally want everything your way. You want it to be treated as a business but in the same sentence you bring up the morality that ll need to respect the social aspect to it. Its one or the other im afraid. If its social, let the government build everything .. If its a business, then treat it purely as a cold hard business transaction where you dont care about the ll and they shouldnt care about you.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I agree, I was 7 years with a brilliant landlady.
I'm fully supportive of them being able to make a living from it which the smaller ones cannot currently. I was one for over 10 years.
But I think people generally do not want to move often and the laws should reflect that. People want security and to be able to think at least some what long term and should be able to rent in a way that supports that.

I disagree with this even. From experience, the majority of my tenants move on every 1-3 years. You might be an outlier but most people in ireland view renting as temporary and move often.

Tenants moving costs ll money to the more often people move, the more it generally costs the ll.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Its 3 years minimum as opposed to 1 + notice period, I think from a tenant point of view thats a lot better security. I think vast majority of tenants would be much happier with that.
If a landlord isnt prepared to be in the business of letting for less than a relatively short period such as 3 years, then they have no right to be asking to be taxed like a business imho.

You do know there is dump and pump companies out there that are purely there to make a quick buck and then assets are dispersed or moved to other companies(eg like a house being sold in 1 year)

I get what you are saying though however if a tenant isnt in a position to sell now but is in 1 year, what would you recommend? Leave it idle for 12 months?

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Genuine qs, are you a landlord?
And is there an example anywhere in the world where tenants are on the hook for the entire rental cost for the defined period?

I am a ll.

In america, if you do not pay for the full term you signed for, some states allow you to garnish their wages and it can also impact their credit record. In ireland, ll generally have no clawback even if extensive damage is caused.

If you want it to be a social issue, i can see where your coming from. If you want it to be a business transaction, i cannot.

nibtrix

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

The pay the rent during their stay, if they wish to leave early they pay a cancellation charge.

Just interested in this, what would you consider a reasonable cancellation charge? 1 month rent, 3 months? Or a proportion of the time left in the lease i.e. 10% of the remaining lease costs? 20%?

Unless the cancellation charge is very very low (which makes it pointless), I can't see many tenants choosing to take up a contract like this. Just like a landlord, they have no way of knowing if their circumstances will change and they will need to move out.

I would think it's far more likely for a tenant to move out early than for a landlord to try to end the lease early, so I don't think many would consider it a good trade-off. Yes they have 3 years security instead of 1 for a fixed term lease, but they lose the right to terminate without penalty. Just my opinion of course.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I suggest you go back and actually read my previous comments where I say I'd be in favour of cancellation charges for the tenant, before you wade in and make patently wrong comments about me not being able to compromise. Feel free to apologise if you are big enough.

I have read the entire thread, thats why i commented on a bunch of different responses. You did say that but that does not offer security to a ll. Any time, someone signs a contract, both the ll AND TENANT should be held accountable for what they signed. It should be equal for both sides. If you want a break clause, it should be the same for both parties - eg change of circumstance(for both parties = 6 month notice to terminate for example).

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

The pay the rent during their stay, if they wish to leave early they pay a cancellation charge. Are you going to apologise now or shall we end the conversation here?

Ok so based on what you want. A ll should pay an cancellation charge. Eg a tenant moves in to a 5 year contract and after 1 year, the ll wants the property back, they pay a cancellation charge and they get the property back straight away. Are you ok with this aspect or do you want the ll to abide by the contract while only the tenant gets a get out of jail card.

Dav010

TheChizler wrote: »

If the landlord isn't living in it it's not their home. It's their property, and the tenant's home.

That is a matter of opinion. In the ops case the property is clearly their home here in Ireland, which they want to move back into. Some consider “home” to be where you lay your head down at night, while others would consider a “home” a property that you have full control over to alter as you wish, that is simply not the case with a rental property. Neither I would say is absolute, perhaps I should have used the term “house” rather than home. Either way, when you rent, that home/house belongs to someone else, the transaction is a commercial rather than an emotional one.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Hahahaha, you are the one who wants everything your own way, you want zero risk for the landlord, to be taxed only on the profits you make, to tie tenants into long term unbreakable contracts for the full cost. You are off the charts on the irony scale.

Please elaborate how it is everything i have said is one sided?
-I have asked for tenants and ll to be treated equally with notice periods and what the t&c are for the lease they sign.
-Investing in property carries risk, i havent really discussed risk in this thread so please expand.
-I have not mentioned taxation either so please expand.
-In terms of contracts, i have asked for equality to a contract where either both parties are locked into what they sign or both are not locked in >i dont see this as being one sided given both have the same conditions.

To flip it, you are very one sided in your approach:
-You keep talking about making rentals a business but any time business aspects are brought up that benefit ll, you want it to be a social issue.
-You want all the benefits that a contract can offer tenants with all the negatives to a ll.
-You seem to want ll to accept dogs and believe they cause no extra damage to a property and you do not want ll to be compensated for this extra potential risk(be it through extra rent or deposit) even though they have no connection or relationship themself to this animal.

Duke of Url

Dav010 wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion. In the ops case the property is clearly their home here in Ireland, which they want to move back into. Some consider “home” to be where you lay your head down at night, while others would consider a “home” a property that you have full control over to alter as you wish, that is simply not the case with a rental property. Neither I would say is absolute, perhaps I should have used the term “house” rather than home. Either way, when you rent, that home/house belongs to someone else, the transaction is a commercial rather than an emotional one.

This is why the Rental Market in Ireland is not a Professional Service.

It needs to be reformed.

Fol20

The almighty google says that a home is "the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household."

I would tend to agree that it is currently the tenants home however the house belongs to the ll so he should be free to do whatever he so chooses while still having regard to local laws.

Graham

Mod Note

thanks for your patience folks. Thread has been split to accommodate ongoing discussion of security of tenure for tenants.

Some posts have been removed as the original context was lost when the thread was split.

beauf

I came back to reply to the OP but it seems all his comments have been deleted. Thread has lost all context now, makes no sense.

...

Duke of Url wrote: »

This is why the Rental Market in Ireland is not a Professional Service.

It needs to be reformed.

It needs to be reformed. But you'd need to clarify what you mean by "Professional Service"

The idea that LLs with lots of properties are more professional makes no sense. Considering, there has to be an amendment to the act specifically for Landlords with more properties.

The ‘Tyrrelstown’ amendments commenced on 17th January 2017 and relates to a restriction on the sale of 10 or more units

Graces7

OP; slightly off thread but there is a thread on the pets forum re the problems of finding a rental when you have dogs that you might find helpful

Dav010

Graces7 wrote: »

OP; slightly off thread but there is a thread on the pets forum re the problems of finding a rental when you have dogs that you might find helpful

Not sure what happened this thread, jrosen is now the op, and the posts by the person who was the op, I think, have been deleted which means context is lost completely.

Graham

Mod

sorry folks, OP deleted their posts so I tried to save what was left.

brisan

Article today about Tenant sentiment and security of tenure

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/almost-one-fifth-of-private-tenants-paying-more-than-50-of-net-pay-in-rent-1034801.html

Graces7

brisan wrote: »

Article today about Tenant sentiment and security of tenure

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/almost-one-fifth-of-private-tenants-paying-more-than-50-of-net-pay-in-rent-1034801.html

Excellent article. Thank you .

beauf

brisan wrote: »

Article today about Tenant sentiment and security of tenure

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/almost-one-fifth-of-private-tenants-paying-more-than-50-of-net-pay-in-rent-1034801.html

Arguably its not about security of tenure but about lack of supply at an affordable price.

Threshold want to remove the ability of a Landlord to recover a property under any circumstance, and remove the initial 6-month period before you gain Part 4 tenancy. So thats the agenda.
Expect supply (in this part of the market) to shrink further when they achieve this, and problems will only get worse.

Runs opposite to this thread...."Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?" which shows that supply is increasing and rents falling. But doesn't make any distinction between affordable or high end rentals.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058067544

Doesn't help that some LL abuse the ability to reclaim a property for their own use. But there is protection against this also.

eleventh

jrosen wrote: »

So if a tenancy should be for life, or as long as the tenant chooses you believe a landlord should be forced to remain a landlord? What if that landlord needs to sell the property, what if that landlord needs to move back into the house? It shouldn't be allowed if the tenant wants to stay?

There should be a way that some landlords could opt in to providing long term lets, if it suits them.

If it doesn't or they aren't sure etc, short or open-ended lets make more sense.

eleventh

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m sorry, no, it is not, nor has it ever been the responsibility of private LLs to provide for society’s need for a home. Renting is purely a commercial venture and should not be thought of as providing a “fundamental human need”, that is pure pie-in-the-sky stuff..

A landlord should be aware of what type of accommodation they're providing. If they don't want a long term tenant they should be up-front about it. It should be mentioned in the ad.

There should be some sort of legislation to distinguish the different types of letting/renting. There are two basic categories
1. students, airbnb, nomadic types who want to stay maybe 1 year, renew every 3 or 6 months.
2. people looking more for a home, a place to stay 3 years minimum, 5-10+ years would be normal.

nibtrix

eleventh wrote: »

A landlord should be aware of what type of accommodation they're providing. If they don't want a long term tenant they should be up-front about it. It should be mentioned in the ad.

There should be some sort of legislation to distinguish the different types of letting/renting. There are two basic categories
1. students, airbnb, nomadic types who want to stay maybe 1 year, renew every 3 or 6 months.
2. people looking more for a home, a place to stay 3 years minimum, 5-10+ years would be normal.

So what happens if their situation changes? People lose their jobs, relationships break up, unexpected children arrive etc. etc. If the landlord needs to sell or move back into the property that they own, shouldn't they be able to once they meet the legal requirements (i.e. agreed break point if a fixed term lease, or with the correct notice if Part 4 tenancy)?

It's the fact that it is so difficult to get back your property even with a one year lease or under Part 4 that is driving so many landlords to sell up and get out of the business. Very few landlords are going to agree to longer leases as there is nothing in it for them.

eleventh

nibtrix wrote: »

So what happens if their situation changes? People lose their jobs, relationships break up, unexpected children arrive etc. etc.

Then they're not suitable to be long-term landlords. They should be letting short or medium-term only.

Long-term letting should be for landlords who have their own home and are settled there. The rental property is separate.

Very few landlords are going to agree to longer leases as there is nothing in it for them.

I'm saying legislation should be changed or brought in to encourage this type of landlord.

Even with the legislation as it is, many landlords are happy to have a good long term tenant - it saves them the trouble of having to keep re-letting the place etc.

Graces7

nibtrix wrote: »

So what happens if their situation changes? People lose their jobs, relationships break up, unexpected children arrive etc. etc. If the landlord needs to sell or move back into the property that they own, shouldn't they be able to once they meet the legal requirements (i.e. agreed break point if a fixed term lease, or with the correct notice if Part 4 tenancy)?

It's the fact that it is so difficult to get back your property even with a one year lease or under Part 4 that is driving so many landlords to sell up and get out of the business. Very few landlords are going to agree to longer leases as there is nothing in it for them.

Apart from assured rent for that term?

10pennymixup

eleventh wrote: »

A landlord should be aware of what type of accommodation they're providing. If they don't want a long term tenant they should be up-front about it. It should be mentioned in the ad.

There should be some sort of legislation to distinguish the different types of letting/renting. There are two basic categories
1. students, airbnb, nomadic types who want to stay maybe 1 year, renew every 3 or 6 months.
2. people looking more for a home, a place to stay 3 years minimum, 5-10+ years would be normal.

So LL and tenant enters a long term fixed lease, at an expected discounted contract price due to the longevity of the contract. At some point before the termination date the tenant breaks the lease and moves out, no assignment.

What does the LL do? RTB? Perhaps penalties/ break lease fees? All well and good but try getting money out of those that won't pay it.

If a LL breaks a term lease early (without a proper break lease clause in the contract) they would be on the hook.

Why would a LL want to get into such an arrangement, in fact why would a LL entertain the idea of any fixed term greater than 5 months, or a fixed term at all?

Tenancy legislation is strong enough.