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

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

Options
1111214161727

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    I did answer your question.

    And a landlord who rents to a tenant who fails to pay rent is not going to rent it back to the again after they get them out. The mechanic won't get his parts or labour back. The landlord gets their house back.

    You should enlighten us as to when you became aware of the possibility that a tenant might not always pay their rent on time, or might not pay it at all? Do you think it is a new trend that only started in 2018 or 2019 maybe? You appear very miffed now that you are aware of it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    In relation to government intervention (your point no. 5). I would actually be delighted if the government did remove one intervention - that being the public money which flows into the market. If they could cancel all long term agreements I'd be happy. That might not be possible but they could cancel all HAP payments tomorrow. There are around 50% of tenants who cannot pay the rent demanded by the landlords and so the landlords receive a subsidy to rent to them. That could be removed in the morning and let the market rate actually be the market rate. I assume that, in order to be consistent, you would also remove the special exemptions whereby a landlord can currently terminate an agreement early? So that if a tenant is in with 4 years left on their current lease, that the landlord cannot evict them because of a family member wanting the house or the landlord wanting to sell?


    In relation to regulations that protect the tenants, those kinds of rules are quite common. Would you be equally as happy to remove all similar protections from other areas? Minimum wages, statutory entitlement to holiday pay or redundancy? Rules related to hours worked etc. Health and Safety regulations etc? I mean if my workers will agree to work in an unsafe environment where I don't provide basic safety equipment, why should I be held liable, or held to account, if one of them gets injured or killed as a result?

    How about self-employed taxi drivers trying to make a living? Should he be allowed to charge you whatever he wants based on what you will agree to pay? If it's All-Ireland or Garth Brooks in Croke park and there is a big crowd in Dublin and it's late at night and he knows that you are stuck for getting back to your hotel, why can't he squeeze 100 Euro out of you legally? The private mobile phone company who figures out that your remote location only receives signal from their masts and knows that you would have no option but to pay a special 300 Euro a month tariff for your contract when everyone else gets the same contract for 30 a month?



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    And you can stop renting your property if you want to too. Nobody forces you to do it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭The Student


    Ok let's try again. The mechanic provides the service once and does not do it again. He mitigates his loss.

    The landlord can't mitigate his loss for a number of months if not years.

    See the difference? I will give you a hint. RPZ legislation, RTB ineffencies, eviction bans? Did these exist in 2018/2019?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    That poster hates landlords so much that he see's HAP payments as a subsidy to landlords rather than helping the tenants pay rent.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,548 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    I think this comes across more and more from his posts. It's a visceral hatred too. Everything he posts is reflected by what ever petty dislike he has of LL's

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭dennis72


    Worst country to be a landlord




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    Many are now leaving their ex rental homes empty or if going to live abroad with the intention of returning in the not too distant future, also leaving the property empty. Of course this makes sense. What would stop this? A proper rate of local property tax. Will that happen? When hell freezes over... or a Significant, vacant property tax. But all of those options seems draconian, when the state chose to create a housing crisis. Chooses, to have a property crisis



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,992 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    Yea they brought out a rule that when a rental is below a fair market rate you can't increase the rent for a new tenancy so in many cases you have no option but to leave it empty for 2 years then push it to the max market rate even if it's not a fair rate.

    They made it possible for somebody to agree a rent then never pay it and continue to live there rent free while the owner has to fund their insurance mortgage and maintain the property. The freeloader will eventually have to move out after two or more years. And will probably get free hotel room until the council can find them somewhere to go.

    Seriously what do you expect to happen when there is a risk somebody will steal from you and have zero consequences.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭DubCount


    To be fair to our politicians (Government and Opposition), I dont believe any choose to have a property crisis, and I dont believe any deliberately created a housing crisis. Many may be misguided or placed populism ahead of policies that were necessary, but thats not the same as saying they chose to create the current situation.

    This is a good example of the bind that the government is in right now. Beating up on landlord property rights is one thing (even to be welcomed by some of the posters on here), but picking on property rights of regular home owners is a whole different ball game. Any sign of increased property tax, a vacant room tax, forced rental of vacant rooms in an owner occupied property, increased levels of property density or social housing in leafy suburbia - they might help, but no politician is bonkers enough to try any of that.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The government cant really introduce a vacant property tax when they have made it impossible to get vacant possession of your property if you need it. There is a large stock of vacant property out there that could be put to good use while making the owners a few bob on the side but restrictive legalization and difficulties in evicting means its a safer prospect leaving it empty instead of collecting a few grand a year for it. While part 4 has been great for tenants that want some long-term security it has really damaged the market for those that only want short term rentals for a year or two as these properties are no longer making it to the market. They should have allowed leases to determine the length of a rental term but offer tax incentives for landlords that were willing to sign long term leases with tenants, that would revive the short term rental market if there was more security for the landlord in getting the property back.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    This is a very good assessment of the current rental market and specific to Ireland.




  • Registered Users Posts: 994 ✭✭✭rightmove


    Ignorance of the impact of policies is a choice. They choose to have a property crisis.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    I agree. Simply get out of the game. Waste if time.. the government make all decisions in regards to what the housing situation is going to look like. They want a situation where project's can be held up forever in court. They take massive tax take on new builds. They set "standards " that make property very expensive to construct. There us effectively no effectively tax to ensure efficient use of land and buildings. So of course We have a **** show, it will get much, much worse too...



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,548 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    There is often more to be got with a carrot than a stick. Problem is at present everyone want to use the stick on small LL.

    A vacancy tax will never really effect a small LL. The rules for the present proposed vacancy tax is occupancy is 30 days in twelve months. Even if they change that substantially it will make no difference. All any small LL with one or even two properties is to have an adult child recorded as living in the property. They could even claim they were temporary separated. Aside for the fact that it will take 3+years before you see any effect from such a tax

    What did people expect when you bring draconian rules that effectively mean it nearly impossible to get a house returned to you, where you have a termination notice ban, where it take 12+ months to evict a tenant.

    All this has created a situation where if you think you may need that house in the medium term (3-5 years) you would be stupid to rent it.

    They wanted to get rid of smaller ''have a go LL'' as some here termed them. They got there wish and people are still cribbing

    If you want a solution to the rental crisis, ask small LL'd what might work not those that think they know how to fix the problem. Because they have tried that and it has failed spectacularly

    Post edited by Bass Reeves on

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    so if they rule out all of the things that will improve the situation, how will it get better? the place is a banana republic! Funny how many homeowners take issue with the near free local property tax, its a political hot potato. But paying over two thousand for co living, in some 12 sq metre room, is fine, once its others paying it... like I said, if you are young, get out of here. You are paying for others free accomodation, while expected to be a poverty case yourself ...

    i know several people in dublin leaving their properties vacant, definitely also gives a sense of satisfaction giving two fingers back to the government, no rental income and less housing available... like I said, this situation is all of their own making. Draconian planning laws, anything above 6 floors being referre to as a "skyscraper", very high build costs, totally OTT "Standards" that most people simply cant afford to pay...



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭DubCount


    How do things get better ..... for that to happen someone need to stand up for what is right in stead of what is popular. AT the moment, opposition policies are even nuttier than government policies. I cant name one politician that is calling for improvements to the RTB, easier eviction of non-paying or anti-social tenants, relaxing of RPZ for properties significantly below market value, tax breaks for small landlords... or anything else that may help. Who is calling for reductions in charges from local councils to property developers, or reducing some standards to make building cheaper, or speeding up the planning process, or providing cheap finance for developers or.....

    Change is going to have to be squeezed out of them when there are no other choices available.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,992 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    The Solution is to go back to the 80’s councils owned and built large amounts of housing. Private rental was casual, you were a student, starting a job…. You rented a place. You couldn’t afford housing you went on the council housing list and eventually got one. You could afford it you bought. That worked up to the 90’s the fell apart in the 2000’s. We need to get back to that. Granted we didn’t have the migration we had then but I think that is much less of problem that people make out. This craic of the state relying on private LL’s and developers for social housing simply isn’t working it’s not good for anybody.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10 jedenwins


    This thread provided some very helpful responses, I've searched a few pages so hope I'm not repeating a question asked previously.

    For the LL's who's official RTB registration was due for renewal after the period of agreed termination of letting was approved, that was subsequently pushed out by the winter moratorium, do they now have to renew that registration on RTB website?

    I'm not too worried about the fee for this - although it is a total waste - but more the misinterpretation it might give that I want to extend the tenancy for another year, which I definitely don't.

    Must be lots of others in this situation. Anybody on this thread and have RTB given a ruling on it?

    Thanks.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,548 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    The problem with LA build estates is in larger urban centres they became getto's. LA are inefficient builders as well as being very poor at estate management. In Dublin alone there is 18 million owed on outstanding rent.

    Having said all that these is a serious need for more social housing to be built. Probably the most efficient method is for the LA to take up there option on privately build estates

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,992 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    They probably spend more in a week on emergency accommodation. My pint is that private LL's should not be providing social accomodation long terms. Fine if somebody loses their job and rent allowance is paid but get rid of HAP have proper state run social housing



  • Registered Users Posts: 381 ✭✭bluedex


    "..the ban has not worked because the number of people in emergency accommodation has risen to record levels, with month-on-month increases continuing since its imposition."

    "..the ban was creating a “new form of homelessness” because people coming back from abroad were unable to move back into their own properties.

    Speaking in Drogheda yesterday, Mr Varadkar said: “I think there has been a demonisation of landlords – small landlords in particular – and that hasn’t been helpful. We need landlords – the state is a landlord – providing social and cost rental institutions and we need small landlords as well.”

    Interesting comments in the media this morning. Who would have ever thought that this meddling would have unintended negative consequences? Lots of people actually.

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭ingo1984


    Hard to know what way they'll go at this stage. New homeless figures out today, record high again. I love how they said a decision will be made before dail recess on march 9th. So basically they'll announce a decision the disappear on their break and st Patrick's day junkets and be no one around to face the backlash.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭DubCount


    I was pretty sure they would renew it, but the recent soundbites look like its going to be allowed to lapse. I reckon they will dream up some new pro-tenant protection (i.e. anti-landlord) to replace it. Maybe a special stamp duty on sales of former rental properties or an increase in CGT on ex-rental sales. I'm sure they'll dream up some way of "encouraging" landlords to stay in the market - against their will if necessary.



  • Registered Users Posts: 381 ✭✭bluedex


    Extending a measure that's been in place while homelessness has reached record levels seems like a really stupid thing to do... so that's what they'll probably do.

    Closing down a sizeable part of the rental market to try and reduce homelessness issues... how did they ever think that would help?

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    I can’t believe they fell into the Sinn Fein trap and introduced it in the first place, as soon as it was introduced you could be guaranteed the opposition would be shouting about homelessness and the need to extend the ban, and right enough off they went, you’d want to be blind not to see what the opposition is at here. They know perfectly well that the ban won’t prevent homelessness and will drive more landlords out of the market and eventually absolutely destroy the rental market, extend it long enough up to the general election you say?

    If the government were idiotic enough to do that they’d be handing Sinn Fein votes on a platter as they came out and derided the government housing policy and suddenly forgot it was them calling for the ban. They would use this to target everyone including single property owners who would be decimated at this point, they’d offer big tax concessions to get their votes, rebuilding Ireland together or some other shite.

    If somehow they managed to get into government the first thing they would do would be to scrap the ban, and come out with something like now that they’re in government and can see the full situation the ban should never have been brought in, in the first place and FF/FG were absolute idiots for doing it.

    Like I say I can’t believe they fell into the trap, now the only option is to shut it down, live with the consequences and hopefully sort something out before the elections.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭DubCount


    The sad truth is we will never know for certain whether the ban helped homelessness or made it worse. We also cannot say for certain whether an extension would help or make things even worse. I dont think its fair to say that politicians of any party are setting out to deliberately make things worse. What we can say is that homelessness and rents are are record highs, rental availability is "limited" (thats putting it mildly), and years of government interference in the rental market has not solved the housing crisis. At some point, we need to consider some measures not designed to force landlords to stay in the market, but to encourage them to stay, and encourage more landlords.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    They'd be loudly condemned for that by most of the dail, they'll try everything and anything else first.

    Renters, particularly private renters are not politically important.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I think the government achieved what they wanted with the eviction ban, they have slightly less people complaining in their ear with no effort on their behalf.

    It hasn't reduced homeless numbers and has had the knock on effect of limiting the number of second hand properties for sale:

    This will drive home ownership costs higher trapping more in a lifetime of renting.

    The eviction ban would only have been successful if the government used the time to invest heavily in rapid build low cost accommodation. It would appear they have done nothing during the ban which should show you how motivated they are to provide solutions.

    The government will probably extend the ban to appease angry renters, some renters will take pleasure at the restrictions on landlords and it will take some pressure off the government.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    No landlord or even homeowner is going to let them get away with extending a ban which takes property rights away from the owner.

    Im afraid they need to make a decision now. Do they want to p!ss off the people who rent property or do they want to p!ss off the people who owns property or is thinking about buying property.



Advertisement