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

Since he is a landlord him, wonder why he is not trying to improve the current system which doesn't work full stop.

No need for the victim complex, or to get so triggered.

There appears to be a fair overlap between those who just want handout, handout, handout and more handouts, and those who can't understand the real world.

Imagine feeling so personally triggered just because someone pointed out that someone who had been renting under-the-table might have run for the door when the other party would be incentivized to document their arrangement with revenue. Are ye all naive? Or was it just too close to the bone for a few of ye?

And no, I'm not arguing with you, so I'm not breaking the other poster's signature! I'm just telling you.

They are leaving because you can't make money out of it unless you sell your house and now is a good time to sell.

Government has backed landlords into this position. They need to do something to keep them.

There will be a regular level of turnover. You have plenty of people telling us on here how many have left over the past X years. That we had a particular rush for the exits at the end of last year can then be attributed to something additional.

I would still say that the rush (i.e. the excess over normal) was largely driven by non-tax compliant ones leaving. Do I have evidence of this beyond anecdotal - no. But you don't have evidence that it wasn't.

Someone posted a mickey-mouse survey where about half the people said that they were leaving because of the level of tax. Well what was the major change in tax in 2022 that caused people to say "I've had enough". There wasn't one. If that was the reason they'd have exited in 2021 or 2020 or 2019 etc. It would however affect people who suddenly found themselves having to go from "0% under the counter" to actually having to pay tax on that income.

Seems like the landlord was acting the bollox.

Strange that the revenue said he wasn't tax compliant. Sure aren't we all being told on here that no landlord is not tax compliant. The Revenue must be wrong.

No, they were on HAP and paid their rent all the time. But the landlord, through no fault of the tenant, decided that he was no longer accepting HAP.

He pulled the 19k rent arrears out of his arse, she not only paid all her rent, but even doubled it and then doubled it again for a period. She had over paid due to the pressure he put in her.

The headline should be "landlord that forced tenant into overpaying rent after illegally refusing HAP. Gets fined the maximum amount allowed because he didn't show up to the remote court case".

Animal farm

This is a graph of overall house sales in Ireland over the past 10 years

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/existing-home-sales

So what is the "surge" from last year? Relative to the previous year you might say it's less than 100 per month. In reality it seems actually broadly in line with the two years prior.

If you want to take 2015-2019 then you might say the increase is 500 per month (albeit there was a fall off in 2020 due to covid and hence a bit of catch up). Plus you'd be talking about the 2020's for the market to reach it's previous high and for people to hit the psychological barrier of the house being worth "more" than they bought it for.

So what are we at then? Can we say that 2% of landlords/units might not be tax compliant? Are ye going to whinge over that?

Now we have to estimate the number of landlords. We are told on here that small landlords constitute something like 94% of the market. And that 43k of them have left. So 43k have left, yet they still hold 94% of the market. Let's say that there are 250k units being rented by small landlords.

So then we have 5k non-tax compliant landlords. let's say 10% of them were "smart" enough to run for the hills. That's an additional 500 sales. You'll have to give me a strong argument to say they weren't a large component of any rush for the door. Most of the sales appear to be general turnover.

The above are only rough numbers to illustrate the point. I'm not going to get into arguments over whether the number is 1% or 2% or 0.1% etc.

Either way the case is hardly relevant to a thread about the winter eviction ban

If you take someone on HAP you sign a contract with the three of you. Council, tenant, landlord. All three have an obligation to live up to that contract.

Her contract was to pay the rent she owes which is about €25. She paid it, then bumped it to 50 (double) and then 100.

The landlord had a separate contract with the council/social to receive another amount to offset the difference. It was this portion that was in arrears.

The landlord failed to adhere to the stipulated criteria so the council/social stopped that payment as per the contract.

If he had a problem with the rent not being paid he should have taken it up with the council and revenue. Not with the person who was doing everything above board.

In fairness that guy her landlord sounds like a scumbag, he had it coming

There are rules about making it available to the original tenant again within a certain time period. It's not just as simple as stating you need it for yourself, and then claiming you fulfilled that by staying overnight in the house one night before putting it on the market the next day.

The tenant will be gone. But they can still take you to court for damages even if they find a nicer place that suits them better in the case where your reason for eviction was not legitimate.

What that would do is make properties even more expensive. Which will incentivize some even more to jump ship

Let's suppose you put your rental investment on the market today. The valuer says he thinks it is worth 300k. Now consider there is a surprise press conference tomorrow at 6pm. Two scenarios. They are extreme scenarios rather than realistic to illustrate the point.

1) Varadkar announces a 0% tax on rental income

2) Varadkar announces a 100% tax on rental income.

What would you appraise the value of your house then the following day under either scenario? Still 300k or more than 300k or less than 300k?

They could perhaps make the existing rent-a-room more attractive to other people. Bump up that limit of 14k and maybe even do something more drastic like give a temporary subsidy of 50 quid a week or something to the owner for the next year or two for every room let out for example. That would increase prices a little too, but the effect would be less pronounced.