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

All points I agree with but HAP limits are often exceeded, especially in Dublin. I dont think there really is a HAP limit.

The council should build their own homes as you say but they should broaden the terms in which they bring their property to the market.

Stop allocating 100% to social housing, as anyone with an average salary or above wont qualify.

That cohort need to be housed also.

Council builds an apartment block with 100 units.

60% should be affordable homes to buy. (not subject to income limits)

30% cost rental (not subject to income limits)

10% social housing (subject to income limits)

This would help to stop the creation of Ghettos, as the vast majority of people are paying for the property and 60% are owners and heavily invested in their home and its surroundings.

it also means that house prices in the private market (to rent and to buy) come down, because the state is not propping up the prices by competing for the same stock with private buyers/renters.

60% ownership also dilutes the funding in retirement timebomb we are facing.

Almost anyone renting upon reitrement is essentially screwed and will end up in social accom or a hostel.

The more home ownership we have, the easier it will be to manage this deficit.

This means that the problem is not the council underbidding but rather overbidding. However in the current situation with the rental market, there may be no other option.

The new HAP guarantee scheme for LL is not all it's supposed to be.

The government said that where a tenant was in arrears it would pay HAP for 12 months before stopping it to a LL.

Now it appears that is not the case. The payment to the LL is suspended for 3 months then he signs some waiver or other before he is put back on the HAP system. What LL is going to wait three months without rental income.

Yeah, the Govt really need to address this.

I thought progress was made with the 12 month security payments for LLs but it appears you would still have to wait 3 months with no payment and then receive up to 12 months payments thereafter? (assuming the tenant didnt pay for the entire 15 month period)

I could also write an article about 1,000s in tenancy deposits illegally withheld by landlords.

At least with an illegally withheld deposit there is a straightforward mechanism to recover losses.

What about an article on how the current system is so messed up, Landlords are leaving in spite of historic high rents. Tens of thousands of tenants are paying mad rents because of lack of supply driven by rafts of anti-landlord market interventions.

I think you are 100% correct. Make people renting out rooms come under the farce that is RTB and you will see them just tell the renters thats it, im not doing this anymore you'll have to find somewhere else to live.

Then you'll see legislation coming along to solve this entirely avoidable problem that they have created. The legislation will not allow someone to evict someone from a room in their home. Noene will ever rent a room in their home again then. Housing crisis made multiple times worse. At least thats the way its gone so far anyway. No legislation or addition of rules or quangos has helped one bit. In fact each and every time they have multiplied the problem.

But I guess thats the intelligence of the people we have dealing with the housing crisis. More interested in sound bites and likes than actually helping.

Wont be long til someone renting your bedroom has more rights to your house than you do. Just like someone renting your entire property has now.

I sure Ms Murphy thinks she is asking for the right thing, but if she engaged her brain she would find that she is actually looking to make things far, far worse for students. And not just worse for students. Worse for absolutely everyone.

From reading that article it looks like Simon Harris is planning to bring in some new regulations for students who rent a room as he is due to publish draft legislation on future guidelines in the coming days. He said back in June that he was having talks with the RTB regarding tenancy protections.

Wouldn't legislation affect anyone who rents-a-room, not only students? If private home owners have to be RTB registered to take in a lodger, imo a lot of that type of accommodation will be gone.

Its hard to see how this will help the supply situation.

Yes, I think the USI are just being naive. The intentions are good, they are trying to look after students, but making people who supply "digs" register with the RTB would be a disaster. IMO any suppliers will just provide the room on the proviso that they won't register with the RTB. Most students, and their parents, won't care one bit.

Requiring digs providers to register with the RTB will be a retrograde step and will most likely kill off this source of accommodation, it will be akin to the ban on bedsits the DCC enacted years ago, it created more problems than it solved.Most rent aroom/digs providers will not bother with the hassle/risk of having an awkward tenant you cant remove.

On a personal level, I live near a large college and I and my neighbours are swamped by the college/students union with leaflets and requests to let our spare rooms, I let 2 rooms 5 years ago as the kids had departed, I like the tax free money (rent a room scheme)and the fact that a large house is being utilised but the most important thing for me is the ability to have control on who stays in my house, if the whole slew of tenants rights are given to rent a room licensees I wont risk having a tenant who I cant get to leave.Most other people I know who provide this type of accommodation are of the same view.

BTW, most USI local offices have an accommdation officer who oversees registration/list of digs providers ,they also deal with disputes and problems on a local level, this system has worked for many years, for the USI VP to now call for legislation smacks of hysteria,but no doubt thy have a career in politics ahead of them.

We all agree it would be stupid move to over-regulate the rent-a-room providers, would be a retrograde step and actually make the situation worse.

So, what do you think is going to happen, based on the past record of the geniuses overseeing housing and accommodation?

Agree. I'm hoping the same.

I will leave my rooms empty, dont need the hassle or risk of a bad tenant making my life a misery in my own home.There will be an opportunity for the big developers to fill the gap after they get their tax breaks, no doubt the USI will assist the big developers by lobbying the government to solve the "student housing crisis" which they will have exacerbated by their demonising of "Digs" providers

100%. Has to be brown envelopes involved for such stupid actions.

Germany set to propose three-year rent freeze

I bet muppets here will do the same