Winter 21/22 Eviction Ban (was: And just like that, FFFG lose 298000 votes))

Article 43:

The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right,

antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private

ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath or inherit property.

The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing

provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

The State, accordingly, 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.

They're currently relying on the 'social justice' part and 'exigencies of the common good'.

They've opened a real can of worms because if you interpret and apply social justice it needs to be consistent, you can't selectively apply these concepts.

For example why freeze the rights of landlords to exercise clauses in their leases instead of say freezing any sale of property until the state buys available units to house the 11,000 homeless, or buys enough to drop below whatever figure they are targeting?

They have linked the eviction ban directly in recent statements to the figure of 11,000 homeless.

Landlords big and small could rightly question is it in the common good that one set of citizens have their rights suspended to control that figure while others don't. The answer is obvious.

Unless there is a ban on the transfer of all property in the state for example to immediately divert it to the homeless until targets were hit, I think that might be defensible as constitutional/in the common good but it would definitely be open to challenge.

What will the penalty be for this seller for breaking your imaginary law?

What has that got to do with the claim that there is a ban on selling?

Is there an exception in this imaginary ban that allows you to sell on BidX1, or could it just be the case that there is indeed no ban?

You do understand the meaning of "ban on selling"?

Here is another imaginary lawbreaker on daft. This time the house is on a lease to the council

https://www.daft.ie/commercial-property-for-sale/22-mount-sion-avenue-waterford-city-co-waterford/3937080

I have pointed out many times that "I might not get as much as I want for my house" is not a ban on selling ....... but I keep getting told that such a ban exists............hmmmmmmmmm

Wouldnt bother you are just waffling and trolling

So that is a loophole around this ban on selling?

Very sloppy legislative drafting there. All you need to do is not put up internal photos and you can bypass this imaginary ban

Carry on

Hi Buddies,

Donald has requested that I explain the he doesn't like the term 'ban on selling' when talking about a landlord being blocked from selling to non-landlords.

Hopefully his work here is done now.

Lol

Are we back to the same thing again? Can you point me to the section of the legislation which blocks you from selling to "non-landlords"? And a definition of "non-lanlords" for the purpose of that Act.

Thanks

Sure why don't you use the same logic and take a Constitutional challenge against the ban on you selling your house to someone who isn't a house-owner 🤣 .

Your own "logic" backfires anyway insofar that it means that anyone who wants to buy your house will be a "landlord" and therefore nobody is legally prevented from buying it even if your imaginary law was real.

Could it negatively affect the price? Yes. Nobody said otherwise. Does that amount to a ban on selling? No. Lots of things could negatively affect the price.

Still waiting on that link to the legislation. Or even a reference to it. Thanks.

No strawman here. Below is your claim that a landlord is blocked from selling to non-landlords. That is not true. There is no block.

I don't know why you keep bringing it up or trying to argue when you are wrong. If you can point me to the relevant section in the legislation then please do so and the matter will be ended. Or else stop trying to argue black is white, in which case the matter will also be ended. I am only responding to posts.

Hi Folks,

Not sure if this warrants a new thread or not but for landlords that have a previously approved eviction notice that fell Feb 2nd, but tenant now invoking their right to stay until after the Winter notice, when would the new eviction date be?

In this case 6 months notice was given on 2nd of September until 2nd of Feb and that was approved by Threshold and sent to RTB as per the process.

Do RTB send out new notice to tenant and/or landlord or is it up to the landlord to reissue any new forms?

I was hoping tenant would have found a new property in the 6 months and stuck with agreed date but not to be, so wondering what happens next really if anyone else is in the same boat as a landlord?

The reason for eviction is the need to sell the property at earliest opportunity once vacated and I'd like a new approved notice date I can send to the tenants.

Thanks

I would reiterate this, make sure you use a solicitor for everything, I know people who didn’t and had to start the process again, I also know people who did and everything went smoothly. Be aware that both tenants and threshold will be looking through everything to find an error to dismiss the notice period so you have to start again, make sure everything is in legal order so there’s no surprises.

Thanks for both of your responses above, very helpful.

The tenant was referred to Threshold by someone in social housing and they then ran the rule over the validity of notice. I guess if the government can't provide housing their 'next best' is to try and contest the validity of the notice. Indeed, it was initially rejected for reasons I'm still not sure about but eventually I went through it again, had the new RTB form signed and stamped by a solicitor and Threshold agreed it was a valid notice second time around.

Just when I thought we had all agreed a date and tenant had a nice long 6 months to get new place sorted, this Winter moratorium superseded everything so that's where we are now.

Ideally I'd prefer if the new notice date came from an official RTB letter, do you think they are sending them out to tenants effected? That's my main question if I didn't make that clear, as communication from me doesn't appear to be taken too seriously. I suppose it's back to your recommendation of a solicitor/third party.

referred to Threshold by someone in social housing and they then ran the rule over the validity of notice. I guess if the government can't provide housing their 'next best' is to try and contest the validity of the notice.

This is what is going on now. Government interfering in the private rental market to address homelessness. The taoiseach has recently directly linked the lifting of the eviction ban to the homelessness numbers too. No-one seems to question this abdication of responsibility from the government to the private rental market.

I think I'll have to do that to make the new end date official whatever that ends up being. My worry is that it's going to be months hence and any sense of urgency is kicked down the road and we're back to square one.

I offered the property way under market rates as it was a friend/family in need. Thought the quid pro quo would be a smooth departure when the time came, but actually it's meant they can't afford anything remotely similar at those rates and bedding in.

Some painful lessons being learned the hard way, hopefully a cautionary tale to anyone else. Agreements in principle and verbal contracts, ain't worth the paper they're written on, mate.