Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee

.. and if its not selling...

See not selling.

One the one hand you talk about tenants in Situ having no effect. Then you talk about having to take whatever offer they can get.

At time of historic high prices, that some compromise.

Well if you don't want to do a deal at what you are being offered, then that is your choice. It is the same for anything. As the owner of a property it is you that accepts (or rejects) an offer.

So even Trump Donal is saying LL its times to end those tenancies. The rational exits are closing.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make as though the property not selling is the same as the landlord not being able to offer the property for sale? It’s not selling because nobody wants to buy it for whatever reason, could be its location, condition, there are tenants in situ, or just the fact that the asking price for the property is more than anyone is willing to pay.

In relation to tenants in situ and the effect on the sale of the property, I did not say it had no effect, I specifically said -

Now whether or not having tenants in situ has any impact on the value of the property is another matter entirely, but a far greater factor in the valuation of the property would be the location and condition of the property, not the fact there are tenants in situ.

In relation to taking whatever they can get, that was in reference to the idea of if they wanted a quick sale, they are more willing to take whatever they can get. There has never been a time when properties weren’t priced out of most people’s ability to afford to buy, so the idea of current market prices being historically high isn’t saying much, they were always historically high, it was just a question of affordability as to whether or not people could afford to buy properties or not.

Historically speaking, most weren’t willing to take what they could get, and the gap between those who could afford to buy property and those who could not, has widened enormously, because of amateur landlords and amateur investors imagining they could make a killing on the property market… tore the arse out of it altogether which meant most people couldn’t even afford to rent, let alone buy property.

Landlords aren’t willing to let their properties go for less than they imagine their properties are worth, as though they imagine they should be able to sell their properties for a much higher price than they bought them for, which isn’t always the case, and certainly not the case in the current economic climate where buyers who can afford to buy property aren’t going to want to pay more than they imagine any property is worth, which is usually less than the landlord who wants to sell up and get out of the business is asking for.

Well since you can't change the location of a property you already own. You can't change the condition of a property signicantly enough to make a difference with a tenant in situ. Considering it devalues the property considerably. It would seem for rental having a tenant in situ is probably the most signicantly change you can make.

Another vote for sell, and sell now out of the rental with no tenant in situ.

Seems like no one on this thread agrees with the Govt.

What's with all the alarmists claiming landlords will not be able to evict non-paying tenants?

The previous precedent of moratorium on evictions.

A neutral observer wouldn’t say anything, that’s the whole point of them being a neutral observer - they observe, and they don’t give an opinion either way.

You’re obviously not a neutral observer, because in your opinion the policies which were previously in effect which prevented landlords from evicting tenants while the legislation was in effect, didn’t work. They clearly did work, because landlords were prevented from evicting tenants while the legislation was in effect! The exception was when the RTB determined a dispute in favour of the landlord, then the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant could be terminated.

I don’t know what overall trend you’re referring to or what crisis or catastrophe you’re talking about when the proposal being suggested by Government was only ever approved once before as an emergency measure during the pandemic, and is now being proposed to come into effect during the winter months to prevent landlords from evicting tenants during the period the legislation is in effect.

Going by the only time it has been in effect before, it worked, and that’s why it’s being proposed again now. It’s a temporary measure, it’s not permanent, and any landlord who is threatening to sell up on the basis of the temporary measures being proposed, was either thinking about getting out of the business long before now, or far more likely they’re just bluffing and hoping Government will take them seriously enough not to go through with the proposal.

I think it’s safe to say Government doesn’t give a shiny shyte about amateur landlords making idle threats.

At this stage I’m not sure there’s any point in again correcting your misinterpretation and putting words in my mouth, while still refusing to read what I’ve actually written.

The reason for the introduction of the legislation, is to prevent landlords from evicting tenants during the winter months, thereby reducing the risk of tenants becoming homeless during the period the legislation is in effect. It’s not intended to address any crisis or whatever else you’re talking about. It’s a short-term, temporary measure, intended only for the period it is in effect.

I didn’t say Helen McEntee personally means anything. I referred to Government as not giving a shiny shyte, about amateur landlords making idle threats. It’s clearly not the same statement.

Your last paragraph appears to be apropos of nothing tbh.

Government pandering here. There will always be genuine cases for consideration, but this message really is a free for all type screw you, Mr. Landlord. No need whatsoever for the government to be so one-sided here.

The best thing she and her colleagues could do to alleviate the housing crisis would be to stop encouraging transformative levels of mass immigration.

Of course, further disempowering private landlords and driving them from the market is safer and easier.

So is the idea to pause legitimate termination notices which were issued based on the laws currently in place?

Not a fan of her at all. But as a Politician did you want her to say **** them let them live on the streets ?

She mentions further down you cant implement changes that will make landlords leave the market.