Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732751#Comment_119732751

Yes, he did on Claire Byrne, when it was put to him that this essentially meant that landlords could not sell their property.

You can listen to it on RTE.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732745#Comment_119732745

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2022/1011/1328433-ireland-cost-of-living-constitution-evictions-ban-moratorium/

People need to understand that the Irish constitution is not a literalist document, it is a balance of rights document.

"The key yardstick by which restrictions on constitutional rights are measured is the proportionality test. In simple terms, this asks whether the restriction pursues a legitimate policy goal; and whether it goes further than necessary to achieve that goal."

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732766#Comment_119732766

The all important right to seize property to get re-elected. Politicians have the right to save their bacon!

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732765#Comment_119732765

No thank you. And the Minister did not say that. You're putting words in his mouth that never came out. And an eviction moritorium is not the government preventing the sale of private property.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732780#Comment_119732780

Nobody is seizing property.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732783#Comment_119732783

Yes, it is. As stated by Claire Byrne on that program. He replied along the lines that it was one of the risks of the business.

The well known risk of any business where separate to any contracted agreement or law the government steps in and stops you selling the business.

You must be a politician yourself.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732790#Comment_119732790

I disagree. If someone wants to sell their property and can't it is seized, especially when the government is using it to cover a shortfall in their own housing. What if someone wants to sell now, can't issue a (6 month) termination notice to tenants as per the law, and is forced to wait and property prices drop 40% due to the delay. Ask them after the fact if their property was seized by the government.

y0ssar1an22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732766#Comment_119732766

Where landlords have not been paid rent that is contractually due, a law that leaves them unable to evict the tenants and reclaim possession of the property is a significant intrusion on their property rights, as protected by Article 43 of the Constitution. An oft-cited precedent in this regard is the case of Blake v Attorney General (1981), in which a law imposing restrictions on rent was found to be unconstitutional, as it left the landlords in the case collecting rents that were far below market value

However, constitutional property rights (like all other constitutional rights) are subject to proportionate restriction by the Government in pursuit of legitimate policy goals. Article 43 itself expressly states that property rights "ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice"; as such, the State "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 would simply ask, what legitimate policy goals are you endeavoring to solve, and how you the government are trying to solve them.

at the minute it seems a circular argument that i think should be tested.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732803#Comment_119732803

Grand so. As I pointed out to the other poster, given that you have identified an iron clad basis for recovering property, there can be nothing to complain about. You will most definitely be able to get it back immediately if and when you want it. Judges are required to implement the law (whether or not they agree with it) and any law that is unconstitutional can be struck down by a SC challenge.

All the people who claim to have had difficulty getting non-paying tenants out must therefore be spoofing. Because, according to your logic, that can't be happening!!!

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732803#Comment_119732803

He trotted out everything under the sun, cost of living, war in the ukraine and the funniest one being the social housing solution just around the corner, so it's only a temporary measure (important to get subject to review in there, once that's in there you can get away with anything). Didn't mention the election funnily enough.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732820#Comment_119732820

You'll be able to make a fortune. There are already plenty of houses which are sold on auction sites like BidX1 which have sitting tenants in place (presumably problem tenants) where the owner just wants to get the problem off their hands.

Why aren't you picking up all those properties at knock down prices and using your superior legal knowledge to get rid of the problem tenants and flip them with vacant possession?

If the proposed rule comes in, there will be even more lovely easy profit for you to pick up!!

Here you go, here is one example. A house reduced to 140k in Dublin 8. Fairly close to Dublin city centre.The rent is 15k per year but is not being paid at the minute.

https://bidx1.com/en/en-ie/auction/property/82984

You could pick that up, use your superior legal knowledge to get them out quick smart and then have either a little goldmine (>10% yield) or else flip it for a much higher price with vacant possession

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732835#Comment_119732835

I think you are confusing posters Donald, you seem to just continue the same argument regardless of posts or posters, time to call someone from bot maintenance!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732412#Comment_119732412

From experience its about two years, Donald implied that people were complaining about up to 4 years in a few posts above mine. Not sure what you are asking in your post, are you requesting that I commission a national survey on overholding to satisfy your curiosity?

Speaking of backsides you are doing plenty of talking out of yours, you are wildly speculating in the hope something sticks. You appear gleeful that landlords will be stuck with rentals when the housing market drops but current issue is that evictions are up by a significant number this year, primarily due to landlords selling up. I'm aware of a number of landlords in my general area that have served notice and are due to sell in the near future too. These rentals will not be replaced in the short term creating more pressure in the rental market.

Youll be glad to know I'll be retaining my rental properties but due to government legalisation I've had to keep some of them empty for two years so I can bring rents up to market values in RPZ areas when longterm tenants left. The proposed ban on evictions will probably mean that I will leave them empty until spring now. Its a shame when there is such demand but that's the effect poorly thought out legalisation has but I'm fortunate I'm in a position to do so.

Ive been lucky out of all the tenants ive had there have only been two bad ones, but the bad ones have the potential of costing a landlord 10s of thousands with little chance of recouping it. Tenants have rights when they are paying rent, once they stop the tenancy ends its a pity the legal side of evictions can be so slow even if procedure is followed to the letter.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732850#Comment_119732850

Did you ever fall behind, or were you ever late, on any of your mortgage repayments? Perhaps restructure any mortgage so that the original terms were changed - even temporarily?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732855#Comment_119732855

I know it would make you squeal with delight if I ever had but unfortunately for you no. I approached renting in a professional manner and only entered into agreements that I could fulfil. Its at the point where I own all the original properties and use the income from these to finance further investments.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732882#Comment_119732882

Why would I squeal with delight? I'm only asking because you said you had a few bad tenants and mentioned either losses, or potential losses, of tens of thousands. That you were able to manage shows it wasn't the end of the world and proves my general point that it is no harm for amateurs to be flushed out of the market rather than be crying for the State to change rules to bail them out so that that inefficiency can persist.

I posted earlier on the thread regarding how one would expect reasonably competent landlords to have money set aside as a buffer in case something goes wrong so that they can ride it out. You prove my point.

Plus it also shows that it can be a lucrative business if run correctly. You now have a few properties paid for. So that gets to the point that there is sufficient reward there for the risk. Changes such as temporary moratoriums on eviction are just another risk which are built into that risk premium.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732855#Comment_119732855

That can only happen via negotiations.. whereby two parties come to an agreement.

I noticed McEntee is all for helping the home owner but what about the banks, they have duties to other clients.

an FYI the Central Bank of Ireland indicate that 5,416 mortgages were in arrears of more than 10 years at the end of March 2021, owing a total of €1.4bn of which €783m was arrears.

Do banks get told to accept the shortfall ?

what if a bank needs bailing out ? Taxpayers pay… I’ve no mortgage here, I don’t wanna bail out banks or people who cannot pay their mortgages…

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732901#Comment_119732901

I think your numbers are wrong. I'm fairly sure I saw a figure quoted of about 17,000 rather than 5,000.

Do banks get told to accept the shortfall? Well during the crash there were moratoriums on repossessions and also allownces made where banks did not have to recognises losses which delayed them triggering write downs. That benefitted many property owners directly, and all property owners indirectly. As did the massive burden of NAMA stepping in to try to prop up the market.

Banks needed to be bailed out because every eejit was getting loans and trying to outbid every other eejit for houses because they thought they were genuises making fortunes on paper. Banks shouldn't be being bailed out. Neither should landlords who want special treatment. Plenty of landlords can cope with the system in place and will be able to cope with new regulations (all industries change regulations). The ones who can't shouldn't be propped up.

Banks entered into negotiations of the sort of "well I can only pay you half of what I owe you or nothing". So in many cases it was a damage limitation rather than a preference. Which goes back to what I mentioned before - if all the subsidies were removed from the private sector market then the landlords would have to sit down with many tenants and come to an agreement based on what they can pay.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732893#Comment_119732893

Changes such as 'temporary moratoriums' are not part of the risk premium and not part of a functioning housing market, they will be part of the risk premium going forward. When the risk premium gets bigger but the returns don't people sell.

'We want you to continue to invest as we are short of housing and desperately need it, but we are introducing what we consider is a normal risk of investing (which is government intervention in the market to prevent selling). The probability of our intervening increases in correlation to the probability of your asset price going up and you selling. But fear not! We have a history of running the country like a casino and your property may halve in value, but we guarantee 100% we will not interfere with your property rights in that scenario. Do not be alarmed, this amazing financial innovation is exactly what you'd expect from a small country heavily dependent on FDI to fund itself. Sincerely, Republique des Bananes'

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732893#Comment_119732893

Apologies the tone of the thread was anti landlord and there appears to be delight that landlords are leaving.

I know that if I had come across either of my two bad tenants earlier I would most likely have sold up and got out of renting as i would not have been able to afford to give them a free ride for so long.

The issue now is the government feel they can make radical changes to legalisation regarding rentals without any consultation with those providing the service, the governments only concern is that it doesnt leave them out of pocket if they are challenged. This proposed move increases risk for landlords, but unlike other businesses the government have crippled the ability for landlords to absorb the risk by increasing prices to cover future potential losses. They are also proposing limiting deposits too adding more risk to being a landlord.

Being a landlord I can see how bad things have gotten first hand. I have former tenants contacting me looking for rentals for family members that can't find a place to live, I have potential tenants offering me more than the rent requested in order to secure a property. I get so many applications when I list a property that I can only review the ones I get in the first hour as there are too many to go through.

The rental market needs a mix of professional and one off landlords, a push towards a completely professional rental market will limit competition and that's not going to make the current situation any better.

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119728637#Comment_119728637

There is this attitude in this country, usually with a certain number Irish tenants that as the house or apartment doesn't belong to them it can be treated roughly. It is a common and traditional attitude which is cosseted by unscrupulous politicians. A landlord might tend to let the tenant have the deposit as he or she will have the RTB and Threshold working against them. The 'gummed up' comes from the RTB having variously a terribly designed and unstable website which makes registration a slow and frustrating process. I honestly suspect (and it would be reasonable to surmise) that some dunce relative of a politician or senior civil or County managed designed it and built it, the usual really. Whoever did, should hang their heads in shame, but they won't. As a result a certain number of landlords don't bother with the RTB. No one in the RTB seems able to help (there some automated help but it is poorly written even for those apps) or could, given the incompetent managers. If a tenant has an issue the treacle slow and incompetent RTB will not provide him or her justice. They do seem to have an institutional bias, but they're not competent enough for that to be of help a tenant who is mindful of his obligations, but is still badly treated by a landlord. The RTB should be disbanded and a similar agency with competent managers should replace it. Property should be regulated competently. Really the only who like the RTB, work for it or derive benefit from what is otherwise the worst public service body (there is such stiff competition but I think they win the ignoble distinction). I know of an older lady who sat in their reception in O'Connell Bridge House until they provided her with help to register a flat she rented to an older man. It is an attitude anyone reasonable can understand.

I note your language calling landlords 'low-character' who 'thieve deposits without recourse.' The RTB or their fans should do better.

There are related issues like an absurd limitation of 2% which makes it really to trade within costs, given the Putin inflation of c. 10% plus. More and more smaller landlords are finding that if a tenant wrecks the place, they can do nothing. If they do, they find themselves ensnared in an endless RTB dispute. This deters people who might otherwise rent out a home of an elderly parent in a nursing home reducing what's available. Other landlords just leave, not wanting the hassle any more. Any available sites in Dublin or other oases of inward investor prosperity (the smaller cities and towns are dying) for some have been snapped up by foreign investors who enjoy extraordinary tax privileges and who only want high earners.

It might be noted that any random person can object to anything in this country in planning. This government dogmatically believes in open door migration, so if Irish people are to afford homes (with migrants or certain protected classes getting the lions share of public housing and it doesn't make me a turbo nazi space hitler to say so) to rent or purchase, they need to be Texas like and throw an Bord Pleanála (in the news for the usual) and Council planning enforcers (who let listed buildings rot or burn while harassing someone with a wider driveway or an extension) in the bin. That goes a little far, but without changing migration policies (another issue along with zoning), planning needs to be utterly de-controlled, or least operate to protect what should be protected and not just hassle people who cannot afford a horde of lawyers like a NAMA builder. Planning and government policy and regulation should not obstruct housing people.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733265#Comment_119733265

Changes such as 'temporary moratoriums' are not part of the risk premium

Yes they are.

What you mean is that you were apparently not aware of the risk that anything like that could be brought in................. that is on you though. There is no industry that isn't subject to increasing regulations over time.

Why do you think that banks would, for the last few years, give a mortgage @2% for an effectively passive investment returning a multiple of that rather than just putting that money into their own developments? The bank was already taking on a fair risk by handing you cash.

If you see "easy money" and you are convinced it is "easy money", well unless you have a unique skill that limits who can access to that opportunity, then what is more likely is that you are getting compensated for risk you don't understand that you are taking on.

There is a man, Nassim Taleb, who is fairly famous in the field of finance (among others) who once described one type of financial trading strategy as "picking up pennies in front of a steam roller". Basically people were entering trades where they "always" won relatively small amounts, but they would do this day after day after day. However they would underestimate, or be unaware of, what could go wrong or how often it might go wrong. Their "free money" wasn't free. And the steamroller would inevitably hit them more frequently than they expected.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119735186#Comment_119735186

What do you think would be an appropriate rise in rents if the CPI is indeed at 10% - in order to cover increased costs of that rental to the landlord?

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119739547#Comment_119739547

It certainly wasn't easy money from my perspective, the return on a passive index is more attractive long term without the hassle.

I would have done a lot better investing in ETF's with my equity over the past 10 years.

Government intervention to ban selling is not a normal part of any healthy market and this is being looked at out of dire necessity as there is no plan B.

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that people should have factored that in, maybe in some third world/emerging market but not in an EU country.

It will have long term repercussions for the housing market.

What they should be doing is trying to incentivise landlords to stay in, reducing the risks of having non-paying tenants and or introducing some scheme to cover associated costs with that, e.g. a scheme for the government to buy rentals with tenants in situe etc.

SwimClub

If we want indefinite tenancies inthis country for all private rental accommodation then that is a policy choice, but landlords should be allowed to exit the market rather than having their property seized. They are talking about changing the constitution to allow this type of property grab.

Someone could leave the country on work for a year or two, rent their place out while gone - which we all want by the way over and above people leaving them empty in a housing crisis (which will now be the case). While away they are told sorry you can't give 6 months notice and come back, and by the way you will never get your place back we have changed the constituion while you are away.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119739617#Comment_119739617

How often do you find yourself having to evict your tenants? If there is a moratorium brought in for a couple of months over the winter, how many of your tenants would you have otherwise evicted during that time?

Do you realise that an eviction moratorium doesn't mean "illegal to charge rent for those months"?

It seems so strange to me that for people willingly enter a business, and that business being one where they rent to tenants, there appears to be fear of actually having tenants. If you don't want tenants then the simple solution is don't jump blindly into the business of renting out property.

If you want, you can sell your property (easy given we are at peak) and invest it in some passive index. You can set that in motion today if you want. If you are telling us that it would be both easier and more profitable, yet you are choosing to go a different route, then you don't have any justification to complain.

There is no point coming on here and throwing out soundbytes about how much your equity would have earned in an ETF vs what your property has earned and increased without given any (even ballpark) figures. Because it comes across as a rant. You can easily tell us how much equity you put into the house, and how much rent roughly you'd have received, plus then roughly how much the property appreciated over that time. You are welcome to put rough figures up to support your point if you want. Regardless, equity would be expected to return more based on higher risk. I suspect that what you are saying is not correct though. So you can prove me wrong.

And no way should the state be further bailing out property owners. It already does that too much

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119739715#Comment_119739715

I'm on here in response to a government intervention in property rights at a time when landlords are trying to exit the market (I'm not one of them btw) precisely because they don't want to be long term landlords.

Many private landlords entered as short term landlords either because they were in negative equity after the shambles half of the current government made of the country with the IMF having to come in, because they were leaving the country for work, because they married someone with a place and their own was in negative equity etc. etc.

These people want to leave the market precisely because they never signed up to the onerous commitments that the government now wants/needs to impose on the private rental market. They should not be relied upon to provide long term housing, but there is huge demand in the country for short term rentals, people arriving from abroad for work who can't get mortgages immediately, students, single people starting their careers etc. A logical synergy would be to allow them to stay in on a short term rental basis (even with the current 6 month notice period).

At a time when prices are still high, interest rates are high making second mortgages less appealing etc. they are being blocked from exiting, while we have regulations getting longer and longer term, while they are pinned into the market by the government.

The ban is coming about precisely because so many landlords want to exit. All your imagined landlord whingeing narrative doesn't hold up, it's clear as day why this is happening. The amateur landlords want out and the government won't let them out because they rely on them, but instead of trying to incentivise them they are strong arming the situation and removing their property rights.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119739781#Comment_119739781

Here's the rub, which I pointed at earlier. A lot in the landlord game want ever-increasing rental yields *and* ever-increasing capital asset appreciation, and the god-given right to sell under a sitting tenant in all circumstances when the market is hot.

They want it every which way and they want a government to give it to them. Sorry not sorry, but nobody promised you that.

In countries like Germany, which has had stable and more or less flat house prices for decades, landlords act like adults and enter the market for steady yields over the long-term. They have reconciled themselves to the fact that tenants and renters have rights.

I'll repeat, what a lot of landlords (not all, but enough to be notable) appear to really want is a money printing machine with no humans involved in the process. And frankly, you're a case-study in that attitude.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740006#Comment_119740006

This is about landlords trying to exit, they are literally asking for nothing except the freedom to get out.

This is what is driving this eviction ban, landlords are exiting in their droves.

Instead of having a discussion on how to remove the fears of amateur landlords to incentivise them to stay they are just removing their property rights to sell.

They will lock people in short term, but the fact they have been locked in will make even more exit the market down the road.

If people want to get out they will get out, interfering in that will only make things worse long term.

The reality is that it is an abject failure of policy to be relying on amateur landlords to provide long term housing.

The government doesn't want that highlighted in the run up to an election.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740083#Comment_119740083

Nice theory,but just a theory.

Landlords were heading for the exit door because of high house prices and the euro signs in their eyes.

House prices will be going down in the medium term and will be damn glad of good sitting tenants.

There is growing pains involved in this for the sector, but a spiv charter will not persist, nor should it. Housing is far too serious a societal issue for a narrow interest group to capture state policy.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740135#Comment_119740135

Whatever reason landlords exit the market is frankly none of your business in a free society. Many could be in financial difficulty with increasing interest rates and can't afford two mortgages. Many may be concerned by the risk of having to pay said mortgages with unpaying tenants in situe.

There is wide interest in state policy and it has repercussions on our ability to fund our society. Strong arm, populist interference in property rights should not to be taken likely by a country so dependent on FDI.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740083#Comment_119740083

You can sell up tomorrow if you want. Do you want me to send you examples of houses listed for auction with tenants in-situ to prove that it can be done?

In reality, it is quite an exceptional gift to residential landlords to allow them to be able to turf out a tenant when they want to sell a property. Most countries do not allow that.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740165#Comment_119740165

That's well and good once they are aware in advance of the terms and conditions and given the opportunity to exit if those change without having their right to sell revoked without notice.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740159#Comment_119740159

To be fair, you go on about a free society...... yet a few posts above you are calling for state intervention to guarantee private debts (in the form of rental income guarantees).

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740173#Comment_119740173

Your confusion appears to stem from your apparent misbelief that you could not sell your property tomorrow if you wanted to.

Hint: You can.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740176#Comment_119740176

Well if they are going to call for an extraordinary ban on evictions they should foot some of that bill no?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740159#Comment_119740159

The government isn't telling landlords they can't sell, it's looking to impose and eviction moritorium for a limited time (subject to constitutional constraints). You're conflating the two and they are not the same.

If it's more challenging for another BTL landlord to secure a loan for a property with tenants in situ in this window, take it up with the banks.

There's cash buyers, investment funds and local authorities in the mix that may well help the poor put-upon landlord esacpe the hell of being a landlord during this brief moritorium window.

Nobody promised you anything. It's time to grow up. This isn't the Republic of Landlords.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740194#Comment_119740194

Again, it would be a moratorium on evictions. They would not be making it illegal to receive rent or have it accrue for those months. Are you misunderstanding it?

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740204#Comment_119740204

OK so what about someone who rented their place out while working abroad who now wants to return to their own place and finds themselves homeless in Dublin purely due to a government ban on issuing (6 month!) notice?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740242#Comment_119740242

Maybe your hypothetical landlord would like to get a taste of the Dublin rental market for a few short months. Maybe give him/her food for thought before he/she can move back in.

You know, just like everyone else who moves back to Ireland and has to submit themselves to the rental market.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740286#Comment_119740286

What all of this will do is give him/her food for thought before they rent their place out in the first place when going abroad, leaving it empty, and adding one more rental unit worth of people to a queue of hundreds in Kimmage when a place comes free.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740311#Comment_119740311

If your notional landlord moving abroad doesn't rent out their house because of a time-limited moritorium who is the state or I to stop him committing such an act of financial self harm? Forgoe many months or years of high-water-mark rents? Not the smartest docket you've ever seen that landlord.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740332#Comment_119740332

If you rent a place out short term you want to be able to return when you choose not when the government chooses.

Anyway he/she receives x in rent net of tax under your nasty scenario above and pays 2x in rent when they return and shut out of their own place by a government ban.

So maybe it's the people looking to implement this who are not the smartest dockets, or the people supporting it.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740419#Comment_119740419

A landlord can "want" all he or she wants. Tenancy law is mediated and set by legislation and government and within constitutional constrains. If the government elects to strengthen those rights in the interests of the common good against the narrower and discreet "wants" of a notional landlord living abroad, they'll have to suck that up.

You use language like "their place". When you sign yourself to be a landlord, you are by definition signing over the exclusive use of the property to the tenent, and it's mediated by law. It becomes their home and they are given protections against the whimseys of the property owner.

I'm not sure where you're gettin 2x rent btw. You're making up scenarios in your head now.

Tenants have rights, and property rights are not unlimited, and you have yet to reconcile yourself with this.

SwimClub

"When you sign yourself to be a landlord, you are by definition signing over the exclusive use of the property to the tenent, and it's mediated by law. It becomes their home and they are given protections against the whimseys of the property owner."

That's partially true, the constitution doesn't currently recognise the home bit, under the law landlords can give reasonable notice (its a minimum of 6 months). You can't retrospectively apply these concepts to people who, for example, rented their palce out short term on the understanding they would get it back.

There are landlords in the market who want to rent out short term.

If you want to get rid of them, this is a good step toward that, because no-one will risk renting their place out short term.

The net effect of that is less supply.

As for the x/2x, lets take a rent of 2k per month, net of tax etc. landlord receives ~1k, probably that goes toward partially paying the mortgage, whatever it's irrelevant.

They return and rent a similar place that costs them net of tax 2k.

It isn't rocket science. Plus they take on the risk of a tenant that stops paying and the eviction delays etc.

Simply not worth it. So we will have less units on the market.

In addition, you can call it a theory if you like but I can tell you it is 100% the case that locking up peoples freedom of choice over selling their property will scare large numbers out of the market, it's just obvious.

Anyone arguing otherwise is just engaging in short term thinking either because they are in genuine fear of evictions in the near term which is understandable or because they are politicians responsible for the fall out with an eye on the election.

This isn't a solution, it will mean less units available for rent in the longer term, anyone who isn't renting, i.e. most of the politicians involved, clearly don't have the long term good of the housing market in mind.

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119739568#Comment_119739568

The hope would be that 10% CPI is temporary. Yet of now things like cost of replacement vacuum cleaners, washing machines, dryers (students use them too much when clothes lines are nearly always good), microwaves, ovens, mortgage repayment (if applicable), insurance, maintenance, repairs have increased. 10% can be harsh as I doubt many except a politician or banker or NAMA builder or senior civil servant will see increases of that sort to their income. Yet 2% is not reasonable. The CPI is general measure of price increases and can have strange exclusions. I wonder to what degree it minimises the rate. Also depending on a how person lives inflation for them can be greater or less than 10%.

Perhaps a rate splitting the difference can be adjudicated by a panel of actual experts who look at how costs are and what can be afforded.

Yet hitching the rate to inflation or some similar measure just can push rent up particularly when the supply is very limited and perhaps still shrinking with a government flying kites for something that should be unconstitutional. If someone decides to stop paying rent (altho seeking and checking references screens out most head the balls), it can be months and a lot of expense. Part of me isn't certain that this is the right question. An arbitrary and ever growing body of poorly designed and unevenly enforced tenancy law and the sheer inefficiency of ABP (who failed repeatedly to approve or deny fast track applications), unneeded and unfair tax breaks for foreign investors (who gobble most land and only offer accommodation to high income people), means the supply of accommodation is not going to increase sufficiently. Politicising rent rates can make the rent rate inelastic, which would not happen if the market worked properly. Likely our dear quangocrats will try make a mess of the rent a room scheme. Something that works okay probably angers them.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740935#Comment_119740935

You seek a percentage increase on the total rental income for landlords by basing it on a reference to CPI referring to increase in cost.

The CPI is 10% but the majority of costs for landlords are fixed.

What proportion of your own rental income is going towards things that are increasing with inflation?

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740957#Comment_119740957

MYOB

If you were like your name sake you'd realise that costs are not exactly fixed, even those things an account might class as fixed costs like mortgage or insurance. LPT will increase, and likely a lot as our rulers know it's not something easily evaded. Mortgage and insurance are under the heading of fixed costs but those are rising in these times. It would be nice if something under variable costs only at a fixed timed and the plumber, carpet fitter, or tiler or painter charged a very definite amount. Those costs are normally relatively small if a place isn't wrecked, but those variable costs increase, and they do for everyone with a place they own. 2% just means the market will be eventually left to those who operate outside the rules, rent a room, B & Bs and foreign investors, council housing for the 'new Irish,' and so on. Rent control does not work except to guarantee a lack of investment and a shrinking market supply. Other solutions overseas to rentals require attitudes that do not, cannot exist in this country. The hassle from the incompetent RTB needs to be underlined (and nothing happens to those who just ignore it) for it has its simps here, who must work for that worthless lot.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119741581#Comment_119741581

It was a simple question. What proportion of your rental income is going towards expenses related to that housing that increase with inflation? 10%, 50%, 90%, 110%?

Is it that you don't want to say because you understand the logical point I'm making and you don't like it, or that you just don't know? I'm not expecting an exact precise answer like 57.1342%. Just a rough idea.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119741770#Comment_119741770

That question isn't consistent with the highly professional landlord model you seem to promote and hold in high esteem.....

If they are fully professional all of their income comes from rent and all of their living costs are subject to CPI, al of their income should adjust with CPI. At a minimum they should get something matching the public sector pay deal? You tell me.