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

This thread is nuts.

Ireland has a fundamental problem, we dont have enough houses and apartments in total. Until this is sorted out, something has to give.

The rental ban did not solve this problem. It insulated some people from the problem, for a period of time, but had a negative impact on other (i.e. anyone who was not a sitting tenant under threat of eviction). Thats why it didnt work. Thats why RPZs dont work. Thats why anything that does not create more places to live dont work.

This housing crisis has been an issue for years. All that has been done to solve the issue (until recently) is implement measures which just move the deckchairs around on the Titanic. Central bank rules on mortgage lending made it harder to buy a home, which held back house price inflation but added more people to the rental market and translated into more rental price inflation. Anti-landlord measures have reduced the number of rental properties available, which held back house price inflation, but again added to rental inflation. Now, we are at a point where anything which encourages landlords into the market, will help renters, but will push up house prices for first time buyers etc.

Its not a battle of landlords vs tenants vs first time buyers etc. Its a battle of Ireland vs housing supply. Change planning laws to make it quicker and easier. Change building regs to make it cheaper and quicker to build. Vacant property taxes, development land taxes, use of public land for building - all great. You can go the while SF/PBP manifesto route and nationalise the rental market altogether - if it doesnt add supply, it doesnt solve the problem.

No. The tenant<->landlord relationship is analogous to the employee<->employer. I only used to latter to illustrate that the former is not unique. Not to get dragged off topics about contractors or redundancy (which was not related to the point as redundancy has to meet certain criteria and is by no means allowed to arbitrarily fire an existing staff member in order to replace them with a cheaper on in the same role). Ultimately, an employer needs a valid reason to fire an employee. An employee does not need a valid reason to leave the job though. A landlord needs a valid reason to end the lease. The tenant doesn't.

Both are seen from the perspective as personal agreements rather than commercial agreements. A regular individual tenant is not a business. It is not a transaction between commercial entities. Whereas the alternate analogy, that would be seen as commercial, would be between company<->contractor and landlord<->council for example.

Where does the above manifest differences on the landlord side? Well, for example, it is my understanding (although I haven't had to look into it) that a landlord can break a tenant's lease under the allowed grounds (family moving in etc.) but that they could not do so for a lease to the council. On the reverse, if you lease your house to the council and they don't get a tenant, they cannot exit the lease the same way as an individual could leave (after giving notice).

In both the case of the employee and tenant, the law will favour the "weaker" party. Whereas in the commercial ones, it is viewed that the business should know what it is getting into and has to abide by that. So it is interpreted more strictly.

It has to be reasonable too. A tenant needs security of tenure because they will be building their life around their home. So they might want a 5-year lease. But life can get in the way and they might have to move away - lose job etc - even if they hadn't planned on doing so. The house is fixed though. The landlord isn't going to put wheels on it and want to bring it to the other side of the country. The landlords need for "security of tenant" is nowhere near the same.

If you want security of tenure, buy a place or get on the social housing waiting list, one of the reduced cost housing schemes etc.

If you can't do any of those get on to your local politician, it's their job.

Private landlords are not responsible for your right to housing, the government is.

Your issue is with your inability to understand the consequences of your decision. That is on you. Tenants have rights. If you want to jump in like a headless chicken, and you later learn the hard way that it isn't the way you want it to be, then by all means come on here whinging and looking for sympathy. But it will be entirely your own fault. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Have another go of reading it there. You merely defeated your own excuse for whinging. You were moaning that it is unfair that a tenant can just leave whereas a landlord can't. Now you tell us that a tenant can't just leave. Well done.

You'd want to read up on the basics. Signed leases and end dates are largely irrelevant due to Part IV rights of the tenant.

I am concerned with how things actually are. Not with whatever you are imagining the way you think it should be, or could be in a parallel universe.

If you understand how things are, rather than naively expecting them to be how you want them to be, it will make future decisions better.

She said she didn't want to leave the area to find a house elsewhere and then says she's happy to go home to her home country. Maybe the contradiction passed you by.

Point is if she has a home in Latvia, then she is not homeless, is she.... Happy or not happy... She has a home...

Well I read it (your post) as her saying "I want my child to stay in school here but things are looking that bad that I won't even be able to find a house somewhere else in Ireland never mind in the locality". Perhaps the interview itself shed more light on it.

With regard to the the car loan actually you can hand back the car under the ‘half way rule’ once half the purchase price has been paid by you. This falls under the Consumer Credit Act.

I've no idea what you are talking about here, and my 'decision'. My decision like many others will be to sell my property.

My 'issue' is that we have people that wanted to invest in providing rental accommodation flooding out of the market for some reason (or reasons) at a time when there is no rental accommodation available in the state and therefore huge demand.

4,700 of them in Q3 last year and it has been going on for years, we are down 40,000 rental units over the recent past, a continuous trend - we've politicians tweeting their shock on recent RTB numbers, while their own policies and tweets are what is driving uncertainty and driving investors out.

If you're interested in security of tenure then it looks to be back firing massively.

The only thing that will stem this in the lead up to the next election is a cross party agreement on controlling uncertainty around regulation and rent controls for property investors.

There is no way they will do this even though they all know it is in the national interest, because there is no political gain for any party in that approach, they are politicians and will fight each other for power gains in the election, looking after their own personal careers. The majority of them are just power hungry narcissists - the job attracts them.

It's politicians rather than landlords the people should be blaming and every single party has had a hand in destroying the rental market to try to win populist votes, it's lowest common denominator stuff.

They are getting out. They arent moaning about it.

The poster is just trying to explain why they are leaving. You dont need to listen to the reasons if you dont want to, but others are interested in understanding the root cause.

Do you not think that they might care more about finding new accommodation than caring about the personal circumstances of why some anonymous user on boards.ie can't cope and wants to sell up?

ha...nice one Donald...you have them all biting.