The eviction ban

They have never enforced a determination order for a LL AFAIK. They have for tenants

I mis-wrote. I meant of all landlords with social housing tenants. Not all all social housing.

Of the landlords with social housing tenants the majority of those are small landlords. As they leave the ratio will change.

I'm open to correction. But that's because the legislation empowers the RTB to act against landlords, with fines etc.

They can make cost findings against tenants as well but the LL is on his own after that.

Basically the system is loaded against the LL. The RTB insists on full details from a LL. They actually insist on you exact name on you PPSN.

You cannot put on B Reeves and if Bass Reeves middle name on initial is in his PPSN then that is required and exact address.

Yet when a tenant raises a dispute the RTB will not take there PPSN before the dispute starts there fore they have no record of the tenant if a similar dispute arises again. Any interaction should require identification and proof of identity.

The equal status act has been around for over 20 years - laws against discrimination are nothing new. A landlord still has the choice of tenant, if there are 100 applicants they don't reject 99, they accept 1. The landlord is not forced to accept any specifc tenant.

Regulations have always been subject to change. If I want to carry out work on my house now I have to do it current regulations, not what was in place when I bought it or when it was originally built. The only thing that is constant is change. My mobile phone provider, broadband provider, TV channel provider can change their offering, terms and conditions, price, etc.... continued use is implicit acceptance of the changed terms and conditions. With mobile phone companies spectrum can be reallocated by the regulator. No business can rely on things not changing.

The regulations try to balance public and private good, additions such as the need for a statutory declaration have arisen because some sought to circumvent the regulations.The are still ample genuine grounds for serving a notice of termination.

No because the minimum deposit on borrowing 300k is 30k on borrowing a property its a months rent which is less than 1% of it value

The RTB doesn't fine but it has and does make determinations against tenants e.g.

DR576/2008 - Notice of Termination dated 28 December 2007, is valid. Tenant shall vacate the dwelling Tenant shall pay €15,865 being arrears of rent totalling €10,865 and €5,000 damages for breach of Tenants obligations

TR188/DR1020/2010 - the Appellant Tenant shall pay the sum of €3,500 to the Respondent Landlord in respect of repairing unauthorised alterations to the dwelling (this is to be off-set against the security deposit of €3,500.00 paid by the Tenants)

I got these from a quick websearch that pulled up an old post from another site - I haven't specifically looked for recent determinations.

In what way does it seem discriminatory? The RTB adjudicates and makes a determination which, based on the facts presented before it, may be in favour of the tenant or in favour of the landlord.

It's technically not a fine but, in case you hadn't noticed, in DR576/2008 above the RTB awarded the landlord €5,000 damages on top of the rent arrears owed.

I met up with some friends last night. one of them had been waiting over 4 years to get a tenant out who hasnt been paying rent.

Last night I found out that a couple of weeks ago he had got a final date for the tenant to move out or he can go down the enforcement route. It took him over 4 years to get to that stage. And still the tenant is hanging on, instead of being in jail for the amount of money he owes and holding one to another persons property worth hundreds of thousands of euro.

No way on earth is there anything right about that situation.

Anyway while we were all shaking our heads in disbelieve the conversation got on to what happening nowadays and why all landlords are getting out.

All socialism ends up with the people who are the providers ending up just giving up providing because, well whats the point working hard and earning anything if its going to be taken off you to give to someone who isnt earning it.

Here we are witht he state basically all but siezing private property that people have worked for to enable othersto have more control over it than the owner. So what you have is the landlords are saying, No, im out, what is the point of me doing all this effort all of my life to be treated like this. And off they go.

We arent too far away now i think from the tax payers thinking the same. Why am i killing myself working and paying all of this tax just for it to be wasted and given away to non tax payers. I they cant reap any rewards from their effort then they will just get sick of putting in the effort.

What I don't understand is why the government don't simply research best practices in countries where there is a stable rental market and implement regulations there. I'm thinking of places like Germany, The Netherlands etc.

In places like the Netherlands, you can't be evicted mid-contract unless obviously you aren't paying rent. This works for landlords too as they they have a clear set of rules and they know where they stand.

Some good points there. If the current exodus can be leveraged in order to bring about a more favourable rental environment such as exists in The Netherlands, Germany and some other countries, then at least some small good can result from the current situation.

It seems to me however, that all the thinking at the government level is simply about reversing the current crisis back to the longer term dysfunctional system we had before. Better than nothing but a shame all the same.

I wonder can number be ascertained, but with the scarcity in accommodation, I'd imagine any tenant in situ with nowhere to go is going nowhere.