Could the designation of an area as an RPZ be extended beyond three years?

S

Sarenco

Registered User
Messages
7,898
In my opinion, any extension of the current RPZ regime (as speculated on other threads) beyond what is contained in the current legislation would be unconstitutional

Back in 1981, the Supreme Court declared certain parts of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960 (as amended), to be invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution.

The Court's conclusion was that the rent control and certain other provisions contained in that Act were so restrictive, intrusive and unfair as to constitute an unjust attack on landlords' property rights.

In particular, the Court found that the legislation then impugned "applied only to some houses and dwellings and not to others; that the basis for the selection is not related to the needs of the tenants, to the financial or economic resources of the landlords, or to any established social necessity; and that, since the legislation is now not limited in duration, it is not associated with any particular temporary or emergency situation."

In other words, the automatic expiry of the designation of an area as a RPZ after three years was a deliberate attempt to avoid a successful constitutional challenge to the RPZ regime.
 
Hi Sarenco

It's very likely that it will be extended and then it would be up to someone to challenge its constitutionality which would probably take a few years.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
It's very likely that it will be extended and then it would be up to someone to challenge its constitutionality which would probably take a few years.
Click to expand...
That's certainly a possibility Brendan but I don't agree that it's very likely.

Interestingly, Dublin couldn't be designated a RPZ today under the current legislation because the annual rate of rent inflation has not been 7% or more in four of the last six quarters, per the RTB.
 
Sarenco said:
Interestingly, Dublin couldn't be designated a RPZ today under the current legislation because the annual rate of rent inflation has not been 7% or more in four of the last six quarters, per the RTB.
Click to expand...

Is that because it's already a RPZ?
 
llgon said:
Is that because it's already a RPZ?
Click to expand...
Before an area can be designated an RPZ it has to meet certain criteria prescribed in the legislation (including a requirement that the annualised rate of rent inflation was 7% or more in four of the last six quarters, as determined by the RTB).

Once it meets the criteria, the Minister can designate the area as an RPZ for a specified period not to exceed 3 years.

When the legislation was introduced, all local authority areas in Dublin met the criteria for designation as an RPZ. However, they wouldn't meet the criteria today - the annualised rate of rent inflation was 7% or more in only three (not the required four) of the last six quarters.

[broken link removed]
 
Sarenco, you are being had :)
They have done nothing but screw landlords for years and continue to make it worse at every opportunity.
Don't believe for one second that it will get better for landlords. Just bail out and be done with it.
 
My point though is that once an area becomes a RPZ it should be expected that, due to the effects of the rules, it will eventually not meet the criteria. Don't know what PaxmanK means.
 
llgon said:
My point though is that once an area becomes a RPZ it should be expected that, due to the effects of the rules, it will eventually not meet the criteria.
Click to expand...
I don't agree - bear in mind that not all rentals in an RPZ are subject to the rent control measures. Rent inflation may subside despite - not because - of the rent control measures.
llgon said:
Don't know what PaxmanK means.
Click to expand...
Nor do I.
 
I mean if you think that the current rules will be the same rules next year you are dreaming. And they most definitely won't be better for the landlord.
Look at the trend. Look at the willingness to bring in new rules on a whim, all hurting the landlord.
Minister brings in rules.to solve property crisis but makes it worse.
Minister moves on.
Next minister does exactly the same and then moved on.
It's a joke. And the jome is on the landlord.
I will bet a large sum that by the time the expiry date arrives, rather than be able to come from your own rent, you probably won't even be able to sell your property , or even remove a tenant for a decade. That to me is more likely, given current form , than relaxing the penal rules on landlords now.
 
It was introduced, I believe , as a temporary measure. And you know that "temporary" means permanent until otherwise.
 
moneymakeover said:
Extended
Click to expand...
Well, not quite. That would require new legislation.

Mind you, I can't see any politicians objecting to this move - even if it would be unconstitutional.

It's sad really.:(

Can the last landlord turn out the lights, please? Tenants be damned.

Beyond stupid....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top