The eviction ban

It was quoted earlier in one of these threads by another poster.

This is an Irish thing. In every other European country, you can ask for such employer references. The hoops you go through in the UK for example to rent privately.

If your going to count inward migration then offset it with outward migration.

The problem is a simple one, its not landlords, its not emigration. Those factors might not help but they are not the problem.

The problem is a lack of supply that has been growing for years. The government were asleep at the wheel when house construction numbers should have been much higher and now they are trying to regulate their way out of the mess and its only making it worse in a lot of ways.

We need 50k houses a year to be built currently, the government is targeting 30k this year.

This problem isnt going away.

@Spacehopper! wrote:

That's kind of the traditional view of accommodation in Ireland and I think part of why we are where we are.. The problem comes when something like the financial crisis happens and banks tighten up their lending rules to individuals. Now some people may find themselves in an extended rental situation and, because supply is limited, those rents will be high. These high rents then make it hard to save for a deposit to buy forcing further rents.

Another problem is that there will never be enough social housing to go around as it is very expensive for the state to build the necessary number of houses.

As I see it there are two problems:

1. Not enough overall supply. Generally we need to build more units for both renting and owner-occupier purchase.
2. Change the attitude towards renting and put it on a more professional footing.

On the second point, just from reading comments here, you get the impression that landlords don't consider their rental properties as business assets but rather one of their homes that they just happen not to be occupying at present. The thought process might be along the lines of "Why not make a bit of money out of it while I don't currently need it. Then if I or a family member need it, we can break the contract, evict the tenants and move in."

This situation has gone on so long and the conversation has been dominated to such an extent by small landlords that many might think this is the only way to go forward: make the experience of renting so shítty and insecure and things will sort themselves out. But it did not sort itself out and the state was forced to introduce rent controls and, more recently, a deferment on no-fault evictions which is now coming to an end.

Like who? Have you an example?

I could not have put this better.

I certainly agree that it is not the job of individual landlords to take social housing tenants. In fact I have said earlier on this thread that the problem arises from an over-reliance on small-time amateur landlords many of whom should not have been in the business in the first place.

It is the State's responsibility however to ensure a functioning market. This requires two things: a) sufficient supply and b) appropriate regulation to ensure security for both tenant and landlord.

It's not scheduled, you could be on holidays and the fridge packs in or a tenant unblocks the shower with screwdriver and flood the place. (this happened to my father, the guy only realised because flood went through a celling into a smoke detector and set off the alarm)

What they are saying is this is truly a passive investment. You buy it, they manage it and you pay them a cut.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, put the responsibilities of both tenants and all landlords alike on a much firmer statutory footing and treat the renting of property to people to make their life in as the business transaction it is, in terms of tax, insurance, standards, energy efficiency and maintenence requirements and give everybody certainty on both sides of the equation for the next 50 years, and private providers will flock back to the market.

The market must be fair, it must be trustworthy and it must be predictable that there will be long term tenancy for those who need it and a long term capital gain and fair model of running costs for those who invest.

And that's the worst of it. A few on here don't think they should pay tax. Repugnant mind set. Complain about some of the regulations etc by all means ,but please with your extra properties don't try claim the poor mouth. Laughable really.

And the poster who said it was none other than Ham Sandwich! Y’know, that boardsie who will always post some random, opposing view on a thread just to get a rise out of someone. It worked too so kudos, I suppose, to ham sandwich 😂

If someone is in your car and you want them to leave how many hoops do you need to jump through? How many solicitors letters do you need to send them

If someone damages your car its easy to get some comeback.

You are making very big statements calling people 'repugnant' on a thread with almost 400 posts in relation to what, 3-4 posts, without even quoting said posts for a bit of context.

I've been reading this thread from the start and don't remember anyone making any big, bold memorable statements about being landlords and not wanting to pay tax. If they did they were very insignificant (probably ill thought out) posts.