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

Security of Tenure for Tenants

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    10pennymixup
    Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭10pennymixup


    Graces7 wrote: »
    [/B]


    Apart from assured rent for that term?

    But how is assured Grace? The only way it's in anyway assured is if the tenant pays the entire rent for the full fixed term up front.

    Even then at the end of the fixed term they could stop paying rent and there's effectively SFA the LL can do at that point.


  • Options
    #63
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,989 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Graces7 wrote: »
    [/B]


    Apart from assured rent for that term?
    If we had ability to enforce that assuredness (ie rent must be paid or you're evicted) then I'd prefer a long term lease.


  • Options
    #64
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    10pennymixup wrote: »
    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.
    Large deposit required - 4 times the monthly rent at least. The longer they commit to, the larger the deposit.
    Tenant moves out early, lose deposit.


  • Options
    #65
    nibtrix
    Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭nibtrix


    eleventh wrote: »
    Large deposit required - 4 times the monthly rent at least. The longer they commit to, the larger the deposit.
    Tenant moves out early, lose deposit.

    Ok so this does make it a little more palatable. The person who was originally arguing in this thread for longer leases (who has since deleted all their posts) wanted all the risk on the side of the landlord i.e. they were locked into 3-5 year leases with absolutely no way to break them, but tenants could end at will. They did say their should be "cancellation fees" but wouldn't give an opinion on what they should amount to.

    However, I still can't imagine that there would be a large number of tenants willing to put down a very substantial non-refundable deposit on a bet that their own situation won't change during quite a significant number of years. All of the same risks apply as to the landlord (job losses, relationship ending, property no longer suitable as the family has expanded).

    It would be a huge amount of work and time to legislate for this new type of tenancy where Part 4 rights do not apply, only to benefit what would likely be very few people.


  • Options
    #66
    nibtrix
    Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭nibtrix


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

    Just to pick up on this point specifically, people "settled" in their own homes with separate rental properties are not immune to unexpected change! Use the pandemic as an example, plenty of people in steady long-term jobs have unexpectedly been put out of work. It's also not unknown for long-term relationships of 20 or 30 years to break down, with the partners needing to split assets or move from their "own home" into their rental property.
    It's going to be a small percentage of people who are willing to take that risk, so essentially it will end up only being suitable for larger companies with multiple rental properties who would consider signing up for something like this, which severely reduces the possibilities.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    ELM327 wrote: »
    If we had ability to enforce that assuredness (ie rent must be paid or you're evicted) then I'd prefer a long term lease.

    As someone who always paid rent that aspect never occurred to me :rolleyes: Of course that must stand.


  • Options
    #68
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Short or long, leases are meaningless if the tenant can break them with no penalty. A larger deposit offsets that somewhat.

    What you really want is to remove the ability of a LL to take back a property for their own use. As thats being abused. They can take it back to sell it, or refurbish it. But not to live in.
    But that consequence of such rule would reduce supply even further. As people who had property they weren't using for a year or a few years, would just leave them empty.


  • Options
    #69
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,989 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    beauf wrote: »
    Short or long, leases are meaningless if the tenant can break them with no penalty. A larger deposit offsets that somewhat.

    What you really want is to remove the ability of a LL to take back a property for their own use. As thats being abused. They can take it back to sell it, or refurbish it. But not to live in.
    But that consequence of such rule would reduce supply even further. As people who had property they weren't using for a year or a few years, would just leave them empty.
    That's only available now on part 4 tenancies. A fixed term lease cannot be broken.


  • Options
    #70
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ELM327 wrote: »
    That's only available now on part 4 tenancies. A fixed term lease cannot be broken.

    I meant its assigned to the property not the lease/tenancy. Until its sold. That LL can't flip flop from it being a rental, to no it isn't on whim. Equally apply it also to Part 4.

    The reality is the tenants wants the flexibility to end it, or extend it when they want to, not when the LL wants to. But they don't want a reciprocal rights for the LL.


  • Options
    #71
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,989 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    beauf wrote: »
    I meant its assigned to the property not the lease/tenancy. Until its sold. That LL can't flip flop from it being a rental, to no it isn't on whim. Equally apply it also to Part 4.

    The reality is the tenants wants the flexibility to end it, or extend it when they want to, not when the LL wants to. But they don't want a reciprocal rights for the LL.


    I think we're actually in agreement here.
    I would like to see a longer term lease being the norm, where both parties want to sign one (eg 6 months after moving in a new tenant, they sign a 3 year lease).


    This lease is not breakable by either party and the rent must be paid each month. If either party breaks the agreement (either by defaulting on rent, or by trying to evict when rent is being paid) then there should be enforceable legal repercussions for breach of contract.


    10+ year leases are quite common in Europe, it's just here and to a lesser extent the UK that we are basket cases.


    In that environment, it's quite common to see houses bought and sold with sitting tenants. The lease is tied to the property and whether the house is bought, sold, or not is independent of the contractual obligations of both sides.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I think we're actually in agreement here.
    I would like to see a longer term lease being the norm, where both parties want to sign one (eg 6 months after moving in a new tenant, they sign a 3 year lease).


    This lease is not breakable by either party and the rent must be paid each month. If either party breaks the agreement (either by defaulting on rent, or by trying to evict when rent is being paid) then there should be enforceable legal repercussions for breach of contract.


    10+ year leases are quite common in Europe, it's just here and to a lesser extent the UK that we are basket cases.


    In that environment, it's quite common to see houses bought and sold with sitting tenants. The lease is tied to the property and whether the house is bought, sold, or not is independent of the contractual obligations of both sides.

    A lot of auction properties have sitting tenants
    You will see "Tenants not affected " in the spiel
    Its the only way they can be sold because no one will touch them in a private sale for reasons mentioned above ,plus you will find it hard to get a mortgage for one, unless you are an investor


  • Options
    #73
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    eleventh wrote: »
    Large deposit required - 4 times the monthly rent at least. The longer they commit to, the larger the deposit.
    Tenant moves out early, lose deposit.

    Punitive in the extreme and few could afford that so it defeats the object.


  • Options
    #74
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Punitive in the extreme and few could afford that so it defeats the object.

    How its punitive. 3 months is standard in lots of places even for a regular rental.

    If you want affordable housing, without any (or minimal) deposit or security, then perhaps that should be available from the Govt not strong arm the private (for profit) market to carry that.


  • Options
    #75
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    nibtrix wrote: »
    .... However, I still can't imagine that there would be a large number of tenants willing to put down a very substantial non-refundable deposit on a bet that their own situation won't change during quite a significant number of years. All of the same risks apply as to the landlord (job losses, relationship ending, property no longer suitable as the family has expanded). ..
    It would only be non-refundable if the tenant left without notice. Otherwise, assuming tenant and LL have an ok relationship, they should be able to work things out.

    I think you're over-estimating the element of change a bit. Most lives don't change that suddenly or unpredictably. If a family expands, there's 9 months notice. Relationship ending, well a LL could prevent that to an extent by not allowing non-married couples. If a job is lost, should have some savings for a few months, or go on welfare to supplement.
    nibtrix wrote: »
    .. It's going to be a small percentage of people who are willing to take that risk, so essentially it will end up only being suitable for larger companies with multiple rental properties who would consider signing up for something like this, which severely reduces the possibilities.
    I'm talking about long-term as say 3 years, which isn't very long. There is an element of risk, but lots of things have risks. Buying has risks as well.

    At the end of 3 years they could renew for another 2 or something like that. It wouldn't be a case of decide on 10 years in advance.

    If it has to be larger companies then that's what happens. I'd rather that didn't happen.


  • Options
    #76
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Punitive in the extreme and few could afford that so it defeats the object.
    For a longer term let a lower price could be agreed. Rents seem to be falling now as well.
    If someone was suitable but couldn't afford the deposit, a government grant could help if they have a history of paying rent etc.


  • Options
    #77
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    beauf wrote: »
    How its punitive. 3 months is standard in lots of places even for a regular rental.

    If you want affordable housing, without any (or minimal) deposit or security, then perhaps that should be available from the Govt not strong arm the private (for profit) market to carry that.

    In Ireland?


  • Options
    #78
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    eleventh wrote: »
    For a longer term let a fairer price could be agreed. Rents seem to be falling now as well.
    If someone was suitable but couldn't afford the deposit, a government grant could help if they have a history of paying rent etc.

    Interesting ideas .. Not sure how they would work out. So you expect the govt to ??


  • Options
    #79
    DubCount
    Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭DubCount


    The irony of this thread is that regulations to improve security of tenure for tenants, only serve to leave fewer landlords in the market, and that leaves higher rent prices, worse quality rental properties, and more difficult for anyone to find a rental to suit their needs.

    If you want more certainty for tenants, you need less regulation and more protection to landlords for bad tenants. That way you get more rental property, lower prices, and landlords bending over backwards to keep good long term tenants. The best protection you can give a tenant is a market with lots of rentals available - that way if things aren't right, the tenant just moves to somewhere that is better.


  • Options
    #80
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Graces7 wrote: »
    In Ireland?

    No not Ireland. But why should a Ireland be any different.

    If we want to improve the supply of housing, and improve the security of tenure. You actually have to improve the stability for whomever is supplying the housing. It can make less margin if it's less risky.


  • Options
    #81
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    DubCount wrote: »
    The irony of this thread is that regulations to improve security of tenure for tenants, only serve to leave fewer landlords in the market, and that leaves higher rent prices, worse quality rental properties, and more difficult for anyone to find a rental to suit their needs.

    If you want more certainty for tenants, you need less regulation and more protection to landlords for bad tenants. That way you get more rental property, lower prices, and landlords bending over backwards to keep good long term tenants. The best protection you can give a tenant is a market with lots of rentals available - that way if things aren't right, the tenant just moves to somewhere that is better.

    Nothing wrong with regulations if they are enforced and fair to both parties. Thus far they've been very one sided and poorly thought out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    beauf wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with regulations if they are enforced and fair to both parties. Thus far they've been very one sided and poorly thought out.

    I agree that are unfair to the landlord
    However there is a reason that came about
    As I have said before, landlords are now paying for the sins of their predecessors
    It may take time but the balance will be restored,if its not we will continue with a dysfunctional rental market
    Oh there are still some very bad landlords out there ,as there are bad tenants


  • Options
    #83
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    brisan wrote: »
    I agree that are unfair to the landlord
    However there is a reason that came about
    As I have said before, landlords are now paying for the sins of their predecessors
    It may take time but the balance will be restored,if its not we will continue with a dysfunctional rental market
    Oh there are still some very bad landlords out there ,as there are bad tenants

    Sins? What be they?


  • Options
    #84
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    brisan wrote: »
    I agree that are unfair to the landlord
    However there is a reason that came about
    As I have said before, landlords are now paying for the sins of their predecessors
    It may take time but the balance will be restored,if its not we will continue with a dysfunctional rental market
    Oh there are still some very bad landlords out there ,as there are bad tenants

    They don't penalise bad landlords they penalise good landlords. They also penalise tenants indirectly. There been a decade or two of new regulations all pro tenants. Yet tenants are still complaining about the same things. So doesn't seem they have fixed anything.


  • Options
    #85
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Sins? What be they?

    You don't remember the hundreds of bedsits in Rathmines .Rathgar,Drumcondra
    The rent paid in cash,
    if you complined you were fcuked out and lost your deposit.
    If you looked crooked you got the same
    Dangerous damp house and flats
    Yes there were good landlords .but these new regulations were designed to get the crooks and shysters out of the rental game
    Maybe now they have gone a bit too far ,but some landlords still either do not know the rules or refuse to implement them
    Look at DAFT for BER ratings, not all have them
    Apartments without outside space must provide a washer/dryer or a dryer how many do
    By law a rent book must be provided ,how many do ,granted bank statements make it an obsolete rule but it is still the law
    They must provide a microwave ,how many do
    They must have a smoke detector wired to the mains
    Carbon monoxide detectors
    I agree most landlords obey the rules ,but some still do not


  • Options
    #86
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    beauf wrote: »
    They don't penalise bad landlords they penalise good landlords. They also penalise tenants indirectly. There been a decade or two of new regulations all pro tenants. Yet tenants are still complaining about the same things. So doesn't seem they have fixed anything.
    I don't know if tenants are complaining? I'm a tenant. I'm not complaining from the tenant side.
    For me the worst thing about the situation is the idea that a tenant can 'overhold'. It's just so wrong. It ruins it for everyone.
    A landlord has one bad experience, all tenants then tarred with the same brush.
    I would say it's very tiny number of tenants doing this crime.
    I see this is as the root of the problem as far as tenants being concerned about security etc. If a landlord was free to evict non-paying tenant, the system is free to move as it should, landlord less likely to want to sell, etc


  • Options
    #87
    agoodpunt
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭agoodpunt


    in the current climate renter (winner) have been able to walk away on a months notice or lose a 1 month deposit while the evil LL who evicts willy nilly is left with a clean up and still has to pay the mortgage
    Risk or no risk has to be even but will never happen


  • Options
    #88
    DubCount
    Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭DubCount


    brisan wrote: »
    As I have said before, landlords are now paying for the sins of their predecessors

    Landlords are not paying - tenants are.

    Tenants pay higher prices for lower quality rentals, and have less security as well. The only answer is supply and lots of it. Eviction bans, rent controls, anti-discrimination against HAP, pointless RTB processes, allowing overholding...... All these things are supposed to help tenants, but all they do is reduce supply. Landlords dont pay for this - tenants do.


  • Options
    #89
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    eleventh wrote: »
    I don't know if tenants are complaining? I'm a tenant. I'm not complaining from the tenant side.
    For me the worst thing about the situation is the idea that a tenant can 'overhold'. It's just so wrong. It ruins it for everyone.
    A landlord has one bad experience, all tenants then tarred with the same brush.
    I would say it's very tiny number of tenants doing this crime.
    I see this is as the root of the problem as far as tenants being concerned about security etc. If a landlord was free to evict non-paying tenant, the system is free to move as it should, landlord less likely to want to sell, etc

    The purpose of this "thread" was complaining about the lack of security of tenure.

    Anyway it's a multi faceted problem. I don't really want to just repeat all the same issues "over holding etc" again. But if you focus on that one issue, security of tenure it's worth discussing.


  • Options
    #90
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    DubCount wrote: »
    Landlords are not paying - tenants are.

    Tenants pay higher prices for lower quality rentals, and have less security as well. The only answer is supply and lots of it. Eviction bans, rent controls, anti-discrimination against HAP, pointless RTB processes, allowing overholding...... All these things are supposed to help tenants, but all they do is reduce supply. Landlords dont pay for this - tenants do.

    Exactly. I'll add it's supply across all types of housing and all budgets. Especially at the low and middle end.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    brisan wrote: »
    Maybe now they have gone a bit too far ,but some landlords still either do not know the rules or refuse to implement them
    Look at DAFT for BER ratings, not all have them
    Apartments without outside space must provide a washer/dryer or a dryer how many do
    By law a rent book must be provided ,how many do ,granted bank statements make it an obsolete rule but it is still the law
    They must provide a microwave ,how many do
    They must have a smoke detector wired to the mains
    Carbon monoxide detectors

    I agree most landlords obey the rules ,but some still do not

    My lasting impression from my many years of renting privately is that most landlords do not know the laws. let alone obey them.


Advertisement