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

Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee

Options
17810121323

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,433 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Yurt2, I'd like to think your analysis vis-a-vis Council's stepping in to pick up bargains would be accurate but I fear it would not be. I reckon that Councils will try to open up their unlimited public money pot and prop up the market. (We have the not-too-long-ago example of the politician who sold the house to the Council in 2018 at a level that no similar house sale in that area has matched in the intervening years)


    I saw the Council in my own area pushing up the prices of both residential and agricultural land during the mid-2000's. Crazy money was being paid and everyone else was being outbid by those spending other people's money with no consequences, accountability or responsibility taken.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,039 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Actually it does contradict your doom posting entirely. But you can't see it.

    Besides if there was no one to sell to, they wouldn't need a freeze on evictions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    You underestimate (or perhaps like to play down) the cynicism of the garden variety landlord. Notices to quit for "refurbishments" (a lick of paint) and re-letting to get around rent rise caps in RPZs is a common rabbit pulled from the hat. And far more common than your hypothetical 4 year overholder.

    The phantom relative moving to Dublin for college is another favourite.

    And your links were indeed most helpful in buttressing my point.

    The "landlords fleeing" canard from the lobby is going to have to be focused-groupped again, because it won't hold any credibility come January.

    I'm not doom posting. Quite the opposite. I'm displaying that renters afraid of a mass exit of landlords have less to worry about than the landlord lobby wants to make out.

    Post edited by Yurt2 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,039 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Notice to quit is either an issue or isn't.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    So let's say I lease a product off you. It means I have possession of that product and you just can't go ang get it as I have rights



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,433 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump




  • Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Asking sorry about omitting the ? I suppose but I thought it be self explanation who wants to debate 🤔



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,433 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Well I thought you might be adding to what I was saying.

    Land (includes buildings) is treated differently to other property. To recover your product means you are taking something from me. To recover your land means you are removing me from the land. My recovering my product from you is different from you physically removing me from my home (even though you may own the building)

    For example, there is actually a type of "ownership" for land called possessory title. It will be defeated by legal title if that exists, but can eventually be used to obtain legal title if that cannot be otherwise established. Or it can defeat existing legal title and create a new legal title via adverse possession under certain circumstances.

    If someone has something belonging to you in general, which they refuse to return, you'd be better advised to retrieve it via the court than trying to retrieve it against the possessors wishes with some kind of commando-style raid.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    A rent control of 2% and the sheer inefficiency and incompetence of the RTB are an invitation and encourage to anyone who wishes to work outside the mess of state regulation. There are enough people who have saved and who might be buying in areas where prices never really change that much, say an older part of Dublin, who would grab for anything decent available. Not all mortgage buyers are stretched beyond breaking by interest rate rises. The essential point is it seems an extraordinarily ill designed regulatory system. The rents have shot up through supply constraints it has created, as few enough will be insane enough to rent out a house while a parent is in a nursing home. One bad tenant aided by Threshold can sit it out for ages. Simpler forms of rental units were removed and new social units are substantially built via inefficient quangos or charities. It's not that Larry the landlord feels a dose of stress, it's more that the utterly limited supply makes rents so high and supply so limited, even if supply will fall a bit now. They aren't going to fall much thanks to the 2% rent control which removes any incentive towards flexibility. The older rental tenancies acts did constrain investment, but at least there were a lot of shabby flats available. Shabby flats are better than no flats or a pal's couch.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    The notion that the RTB is the main culprit (or even in the top 10 of culprits) that give us supply contraints is a new one I've heard now I have to say. Planning (it's own thread), soft-touch vacancy and derliction enforcement, the refusal to tax the same to get land and properties moving etc etc.

    I'm not going to argue that the RTB is a paragon of efficiency, but the reality is the plurality of what they do is being gummed-up dealing with cases of landlords acting fast-and-loose with the law and their responsibilites. There's a culture problem there that's slowly getting unpicked. I don't want to come across too much as kick a landlord (although I'm probably coming across as such), but there's enough low-character landlords washing around the sector who are still getting used to the idea that tenants have rights to keep the RTB very very busy indeed. The RTB system is a vast improvement on the regime that allowed far too many landlords quite frankly thieve tenants deposits without recourse and other malfeasences.

    As I alluded to perhaps on a different thread, the new rental tax credit is going to smoke out sh*loads of landlords on a tax-dodge and hiding in the bushes from RTB registration. The government may as well cut tot the chase and start recruiting for more staff now. I have very little sympathy for people like that who will be nabbed.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    No if I have a property (which i do not), it is still mine I am allowing you by Contract under certain conditions to live there. So no I am not taking something from you I am taking my property back. He'll by you definition if I leased you a car and you stopped baying it I be removing you from the car. Its my property not yours



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Property rights are limited and not absolute. They are mediated and limited by legislation in all sorts of ways.

    And furthermore, 'the home' (and not just "muh property rights") enjoys strong constitutional protection in Ireland. And whether the property owner likes it or not, it is the tenant's home.



  • Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭dennis72


    The home stronger that ownership is unconstitutional it would require a referendum.

    The previous eviction ban was tied to the 5km movement restriction

    So a new eviction ban will probably use some temporary exsisting and anyone who tries to challenge will have to have big funds so it is not democratic.

    Comes with a social risk premium for higher lending and rental rates on the middle class as an extra stealth tax.

    Keeping the SW majority of voters onside wins elections



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    I get its there home and while there compliant tenants I agree under there contract they should have great right but if you break those contracts with non payment or over staying your agreement then to me the tenant seems to have more right and ways to stop eviction indefinite



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,433 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Oke dokey. There should be no issues then...... I wonder what all the people giving out are giving out about then. Given that things work the way you have imagined them to work!!!!!


    (The above kind of posts remind me of those lads who arrive in court and ask the judge about his "Oath" or his hat and confidently explain why the court does not have jurisdiction over them)



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    You fundamentally misunderstand property rights and somehow believe that tenants have actual ownership of the property they rent, and that to evict for non-payment is equal to stealing from a tenant. Hard to argue with that level of delusion lol

    Watch those goalposts move



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,433 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Oke dokey Timmy.

    The only question remains as to why you are on here arguing with yourself then? If things work the way you imagine them to, then there should be no issues for you to be moaning about - should there?

    You are arguing about a problem that might hypothetically arise, and then "proving" why it cannot arise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,359 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Taken a loss on an apartment? Sorry what do you mean by that? If its rent not covering the mortgage, that isn't a loss - that is despite it often presented as one.

    With appreciating house prices it is nearly impossible to make a loss on an apartment currently, even if no one was paying rent.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    I'm arguing with people who believe that an eviction ban will separate the wheat from the chaff, when in reality it will be like pouring salt all over the earth.

    It fundamentally breaks the market for lettings in this country if brought in - but sure its all de evil landlords making money hand over fist (yet exiting the market at the fastest rate in decades - go figure)



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,433 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Why are all the landlords giving out about current rules Timmy? The eviction ban has only been floated.

    Why are all these landlords giving out about the current state of things? How come they don't know what you know about property rights and are taking so long to recover their property? People going on earlier about things taking 4-years? Are they just eejits who don't realise that they can just go and take back their property whenever they want as soon as the tenant is late with a payment? Have you ever considered setting yourself up as an advisor? I'm sure you would make a lot of money given that your advice would be literally saving people tens of thousands of Euros

    Would you like to square that circle for us? You're going on about moving goalposts. Why not try to stick on the point which was property rights and why I was wrong about some general points? Thanks



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Instead of an eviction ban the government should be looking at fast track evictions. It shouldnt take four years to evict a non paying tenant like Donald has indicated. If problem tenants were bounced around every few weeks they might cop onto themselves, making the rental market more palatable for all.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Nope mot one of those people and I probably wasn't explaining myself very well. Of course by getting it back means legally but it seems to me a non complient person be it a renter or a mortgage holder can just stop paying and its all grand. Just realised we who pay what we need to are suckers and it f£$&*&g makes me mad



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,433 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Well tenants have rights too. Some might abuse those rights but they exist for good reason. That's the price for protecting the vulnerable ones. And the general concepts are known in advance (or should be) even if they are tweaked over time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Where are these four-year-overholders? How many of them is there? Or...could you...no, you wouldn't be pulling that out of your backside would you?



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    The government has failed miserably to provide housing and are now preventing the sale of private property to provide housing to avoid a political fallout, simple as. Similar to the banking crisis, where taxpayer money was seized to guarantee the debts of the banks. As Leo is pointing out, this is just storing up these termination notices in the system, but they will wait for the interest hike driven price drop to stop landlords exiting. Listening to the FF minister going on about social housing coming on line and this just being temporary - LOL. They are out to save their necks from the political fallout of the build up of landlords selling their properties after the Covid moratorium, because they know they will be out of a job come the next election. They will drag this moratorium out to the next election or housing correction whichever happens first. They'd do literally anything to save their own skin. Interesting times!



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2




  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    Yes, they are and the FF minister admitted as much, however not to worry as it's only temporary.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,918 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    this must end up in the supreme court at some stage.

    you cant have a contract whereby party A dont have to fulfill their obligations while party B cant pull out?

    that must be against something in the constitution surly? or at very least english common law?



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    This has nothing to do with contracts, they are overriding any contracts or any tenant law.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2




Advertisement