Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee

1) Capital reserves are irrelevant to tenants rights

2) Landlords already receive hefty premia to compensate for risks.

3) From where are you imagining a scenario that a landlord could lose their property "forever"? There is no need to be so melodramatic!!

The plan with out sourcing housing to the private sector was to off load costs to the private sector. When the sector didn't want it, they blocked the sector from refusing those tenants and payments. People here will twist that into propping up the sector. But the sector never wanted that business or those payment's. You can see that in how the institutional large LLS mostly avoid the lower end and social housing end of the market, because there's less profit in it. So when people say pull the social housing payments away from the LL's, its just a strawman as LL's would love that to happen and got back just to private tenants. Same with these eviction mortarium's and evitable non payment of rent. Those costs are often carried by the LL. The Govt doesn't want LL leaving as otherwise they'd have to back to covering these costs.

Thus far successive Govts has managed to deflect all the blame for these problems from themselves to LLs. They don't seem to stopping doing that any time soon and the people suck it up.

No I'm not. I'm explaining why a landlord can't summarily evict a tenant on a whim. And also pointing out that these concepts are not new and a landlord expressing surprise to have just learned that such concepts exist cannot expect to receive any sympathy. You're extrapolating that for some reason.That's on you though.

Non payment of rent as per a tenants contractual obligations is not "a whim".

its the biggest breach of contract going and should not be encouraged or protected. If you refuse to pay your rent you should not be protected from eviction by the law.

The ‘temporary’ tax USC has been in place for over a decade. How temporary would any eviction ban be?

There will be no players in the game if these are the type of "unexpected changes" involved - regulation to kill the market. Currently we have an eviction ban being mooted with no definitive start or end dates (or even explicit confirmation that it would be temporary). There's no better way to destroy the rental supply than propose eviction bans for an undetermined period of time.

Temporary me-hole. This is the government mooting the uncompensated seizure of private property to provide the accommodation required in a housing crisis because they don't want bad headlines re evictions in the run up to next election. Once in, it will be extended/renewed at least to the next election, and indefinitely if/when SF get in. Extending eviction bans means that private landlords will have to tie up their capital and personally fund the cost of living accommodation for their tenants, while paying their buy to let mortgages, service charges, maintenance etc. for what, 18 months now, 2 years, 3 years? Many of these are ordinary tax payers who have rented out their place while moving abroad for a while, couples each with their own small apartments that kept one to wait for it to get out of negative equity to sell after the last crisis etc.

The irony is what they are dong will just make it worse. They will say they had no choice because it was getting worse. Which then justify something else to make it work. Its a circle with no end.

I would sell them, likely to a FTB, who would then occupy the building at a lower occupancy rate than if it were a rental.

Housing stock stays the same, but number of people housed drops. Thats what happens when landlords leave the market.

People who are landlords "freak out" because the law is changed to make their job too risky

They have their own game and don't care if they make things worse, just so long as it isn't obviously attributable to them - they care about being elected.

FTB are overwhelmingly owner-occupiers and not landlords themselves. Owner-occupiers are also the biggest group of buyers in the market, so when selling a house you are most likely to be selling to an owner-occupier.

Owner-occupied dwellings have lower occupancy rates (persons per house) than rented dwellings, so as landlords sell up and owner-occupiers buy, the total number of people being housed actually drops.

As regards leaving the market, it is incredibly difficult to sell a property with tenants in situ. If you cannot get vacant possession of a property, no bank will lend against so the pool of viable buyers shrinks considerably. In this way, an overholding/non-paying tenant can not only cause a landlord to have a money sink (bills, LPT, mortgage still need paid) but also seriously inhibit them selling the house and getting out of the game, as so few people are willing to buy a house with tenants in situ. Even a big cash buyer would stay away as its a big red flag - why buy a house with tenants when there is a good chance they are not paying? If they were paying, why would the landlord sell in the first place?

And so you have the near-unsellable house.

The 1st question that would enter my head is “why, if renting is so lucrative, is the owner selling this property with in-situ tenants?”

Well, for one example, as I mentioned in an earlier post I know someone who has given notice to tenants because they need to sell their property.

Will this now mean that they can't sell their place. What if they are forced to wait until spring and there is a recession in the interim and property prices fall say 30%?

Government then has interfered in people's property rights and forced a 30% loss on their place. What if they are in financial difficulty at the moment and the reason they are selling is that they can't afford the mortgage on recently hiked rates?

Anyone who is going to say that is a risk of the 'game', no it isn't. They are changing the rules of the game because what - gas prices are up?

We all know it's for political reasons.

Yes, but has it not already been flagged that there wil be exceptions to the ban in the case of non-paying or disruptive tenants?

We have an apartment that is soon to become vacant. Lovely tenants. Though previous ones were a right pain. It needs a fair bit of updating at this point, but we would never be able to increase therenbt to match the investment cost. We were thinking of keeping renting it as it is after the current tenants move. But its stories like the OP that have tipped us into the decision to just sell it. There is a risk to letting out property now that is just not worth it.

I honestly dont see why anyone would want to open themselves up to it.