The eviction ban

I don't think there's enough social accommodation available for that to be a significant danger.

...once again, banks never ever ever lend out deposits, ever! they simply create this money by a method thats commonly called 'double entry book keeping', i.e. the creation of credit is an accountancy activity....

Ah you are taking the piss hahah , enjoy your weekend

Well I had to spend a lot of time with you yesterday explaining the difference between a contractor and an employee. I think you might have gotten it in the end.... I can never really be sure. But that's enough for one week.

We seem to have a pretty bad state dependency problem in the country which I don't think is healthy.

Reading in the IT today that homes with income of over 100k pre-tax could be entitled to the state's cost rental scheme.

It will reach the point where nearly everyone is on some form of state subsidy for something the way things are going.

When the next financial crisis hits i'd worry there will be really painful consequences to all this.

The money tree will start to shrivel at some stage.

We have record numbers of homeless already, the landlord ministers probably want to sell their many homes

It doesnt.

when someone buys a house they either move into it or rent it out.

you have come up with a load of scenarios that suit your viewpoint and ignore the other ones that dont.

So a family gets a home of their own to move into. I dont see a problem with that, kids get security and can keep their friends and stay in the same school without threat of eviction.

Whats happening here is that landlords are being demonized and those being evicted are the victims, while we all fail to take notice that someone with a housing need is going to get sorted and while one lot go onto the homeless list another go off it.

The problem here is supply, pure and simply its supply, a house gets made empty and someone else moves in.

The eviction ban will make some people homeless, but then it gives others a house.

its really that simple.

Most people who own houses only own one.

If your buying your first house you are by definition homeless.

Apologise so

I’ve no horse in either race but….

you will only disincentivise people paying rent if there is no repercussions for them not paying. If the government said… for 12 months anyone who steals from a shop, won’t be prosecuted… Anarchy reigns….and anarchy will reign in the rental market.

meanwhile the landlord can’t tell his bank manager re: mortgage … “ the tenant hasn’t coughed up rent for three months, I’m out 4500 euros, fûck all I can do, “…. The bank don’t care…

its a seriously undemocratic manoeuvre implementing any such ban, deal with the issue of supply vs demand….head on at source…

unfortunately the EU have zero appetite to deal with it….our government the same.

Losing your home must be one of the worst situations anyone can face, so stressful and worrying for those affected. The government knew that more landlords left every time extra regulations were introduced and yet they kept at it. It looks like indefinite tenancies plus the eviction ban really spooked landlords, and sadly, tenants are paying the price.

Changing the tax situation for landlords is not a great idea as others have posted. What might help is less complexity, a quicker RTB dispute process, a deposit scheme, and let both parties to a tenancy agreement agree a contract that suits them within less strict guidelines.

For instance, if both parties want a one year lease, let them have that. If they both agree to extend it, let them extend for another year or whatever period they want and then make both parties keep to the agreement with penalties for whoever breaks the contract. Some landlords and tenants would be happy to agree a 5/10/15/20+ year lease with break clauses, options to roll-over etc and thats great. That way both parties know where they stand, both have security. As things stand now, landlords have no idea how long tenants will be there, they are in limbo. Tenants have no idea if their landlord will decide to sell etc, they have no certainty.

A defined lease period means landlords cant terminate for family use, selling etc, tenants homes are secure for the agreed period, rent and allowed increases should be set out in the agreement and that seems fair to both parties. Landlords feel the current system favours tenants and they feel hard done by, would it not be better if both parties knew upfront what they were signing up to. Maybe the RTB should have some oversight of leases at the start of a tenancy instead of at the end when there's a problem - prevention being better than a cure comes to mind.

Also, REIT companies are not the disaster some think imo. Property rental is their business, they know the rules, they can provide more supply than individual landlords, their properties are high quality, all standards are met, regular maintenance, more security for tenants as family use or sale is unlikely, they appear to be profitable so will probably stay around. So if they have favourable tax treatment in return, is that not helping?

Whatever the government decides now, it has to be fair. Tenants and landlords have both been in stress mode for years now and they deserve better. Just my tuppenceworth.

There was never going to be a good time to lift the moratorium however the government had no choice but to lift it.

If the had extended it as a minimum they would have had to allow LL look for the house back where they or a direct family member required it back.

It is possible as well that the courywould have overturned the ban in the case of owner requiring the same of the unit. Even if the courts upheld that part the way around was to look for possession for a family member and sell 12-18 months later.

The continuing of the ban was not an option because of that. You could also have the appalling vista of the state( through the RTB or other agencies) suing small LL in such situations after an 70-80 year old LL or his widow used such an option to sell the property