Be careful about keeping your old home so that your child can use it in College in a few years

G

Greenbook

Registered User
Messages
2,563
Copied from another thread.

Here is what the Labour Party is calling for now. When the current rules make things worse, are these the next phase?

“All renters should have the same rights – irrespective of who their landlord is. My amendments would remove the two different categories of tenure, making sure that landlords can’t terminate a tenancy to sell a property, renovate it or move in family members for all renters – and that landlords can sell a property with the tenant in situ. That’s a very basic initial step.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have copied this post from another thread.

One of the arguments people make for keeping their old home after trading up is that the children who are young now, will be able to use it in a few years when they are going to College.

Likewise, some people invest in property now, in a university town so that their children might avail of it in a few years.

This outrageous proposal from the Labour Party now casts serious doubt on this supposed advantage.

There was always the risk that the tenant would overhold. Now there is a risk that you simply won't be able to legally access the property for your child.

You could well end up receiving a very low rent on your investment while paying out a much higher rent for your child. And the rent you receive would be taxed while you get no tax relief on the rent you pay.
 
Last edited:
The same principle would apply if you are moving abroad for a while or moving home to look after an elderly parent. You'd really want to think carefully about renting out your own home. You may not get it back when you need it. Your tenant could be paying low, taxable rent to you. You'll be renting expensively here or paying him a large sum of money to leave.

This would have been something you'd do without thinking in the past to cover the mortgage while you were away. It is very risky now.
 
I don't think that the moving abroad situation has changed.

It has always been a risk that you could not get your home back.

No one is proposing that terminating a lease for your own occupation is to be prohibited. Well, not yet, at least.
 
You certainly need to give renting your home out if you move abroad temporarily much more thought than you would have had to in the past.

If you can manage the mortgate yourself, it isn't worth the risk.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
No one is proposing that terminating a lease for your own occupation is to be prohibited. Well, not yet, at least.
Click to expand...
It is for all large landlords under these latest proposals. They cannot get vacant possession to occupy any of their property for themselves.
 
Correct. Nor could you, or close ones ever move into any of your own tenanted investment properties if you have 4 or more.

There'll be just over 12,000 LLs - so thats the size of the net. I find it nuts they are legally not able to live in their own properties themselves (never mind their children, parents, etc)
 
Crikey we really are a very long way from the Section 23 'glory days' of old, aren't we? No rental crisis back then either, I remember living in a nice bedsit in the heart of Rathmines for only 20 quid a week!
 
stormy said:
I find it nuts they are legally not able to live in their own properties themselves (never mind their children, parents, etc)
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how the state can compel an owner to sell a property just because they don’t want to be a landlord any longer. Does art.43 not say that there is a right to private ownership and the state won’t pass any laws to abolish that right?

If a person is entitled to own property then presumably they are allowed to use it, rent it, gift it, or leave it vacant once they pay any relevant taxes. However if they choose to rent it at any stage, the state says they must continue to rent it otherwise they have to sell it, (unless the owner or a family member live in it if a small landlord). It’s very confusing to me.
 
Last edited:
Greenbook said:
I think that it needs to be occupied for 31 days a year to avoid that.
Click to expand...
Yip - it will be in Dublin and we'll easily occupy it for 31 days a year. It's a shame though, I'll only need it for my kids in about 3 years time, so for all intents & purposes, it'll be idle until then.
 
Greenbook said:
If you think that house prices will continue to increase then it would make sense to buy now.
Click to expand...

I am not sure of that. Personally, I would invest the money in the stockmarket for three years. A lot less hassle. Of course, you could get caught out with house prices rising and the stockmarket falling. But it sounds as if you can handle that risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top