There is no proposal to limit a landlord's freedom to sell. There is a proposal to limit a landlord's freedom to evict a tenant in order to sell, but thaty may make sense if it comes with an intention to facilitate the development of a market in which properties are sold with sitting tenants.
ExactlyThere are many parts of Ireland where there is now an extremely limited market (practically zero) market for tenant's in situ properties.
What professional investor would purchase a property given the difficulties of having a tenant removed from a property and all the restrictions that we have currently and coming down the road.
Its not a mature market and how would it be financed
Calling into "Paddy Power" might be as safe.
This makes no sense because if she or her estate is forced to sell with tenants in situ it devalues the property.Well, no, if you want to not be a big landlord, all you need to is dispose of all but your properties in excess of three. You can keep three of them, including the one that houses the special needs child.
And you don't necessarily have to sell them. Who were you planning on leaving them to? Is there scope here for a bit of estate planning, by transferring properties now to the next generation of your family? (And it wouldn't require you to give notice to the tenants; you could transfer subject to the tenancy.) Obviously that might not suit your circumstances or your objectives, but it's a course of action that might suit others in your position.
At worst, I think you just have to not have a tenant in it. And it may be sufficient to have a tenant in it, but to have served a valid notice of termination.
Yes, but as far as I know you can't get a mortgage, even a BTL one without vacant possession. So your market is confined to brave, cash only landlords, a very limited cohort at this point in time.If they think a part of the solution to the housing crisis is normalising European-style long-term renting, and if they also want to professionalise the landlord side of the equation, then I think a market in which properties with subsisting tenancies can be traded is essential. If landlords can't realise their investment without evicting their tenants, then you can't have both commercially-driven landlording, and secure long-term tenure for tenants.
Price will be below market value because the new landlord is taking a bet on their new permanent tenant (if he's so great, why are you selling) and your market is limited entirely to cash only landlords.In theory this is correct but in reality the price that will be achieved will be below open market due to the rent controls.
Not the first time this been raised...Now I haven't any real clue on this point, but I am wondering whether all this is unconstitutional.
I struggle to see how an open-ended prohibition on “large” landlords seeking no-fault termination of tenancies could be constitutional. It looks like an unjustified attack on property rights to me.
Is there any possibility that this will not be approved or constitutional??
Ir seems to go against all our constitutional rights.
I don't think so. I think they've solved it this way:
1. All current leases stay as they are - you can evict for sale etc.
2. When the current lease ends post 1 March 2026, it is up to you to enter into a new one with a new tenant. If you do so, you are fully aware of what the rules are and have made decision to restrict your property rights with your eyes wide open, so you can't say your constitutional rights have been breached. If you didn't know the rules, ignorance of the law is no defence.
I accept that there is currently no market for tenanted properties. My point is that, if you're going to have both commercial landlording and stable tenancies then you need such a market.There are many parts of Ireland where there is now an extremely limited market (practically zero) market for tenant's in situ properties.
What professional investor would purchase a property given the difficulties of having a tenant removed from a property and all the restrictions that we have currently and coming down the road.
But think about what will happen to such a longterm professional landlord here in Ireland, based on the new rules and what we've seen over the last 10 years:In principle, the fact that a property comes with a tenant who enjoys security of tenure shouldn't be a problem for a professional landlord purchaser, since he wants the property to be tenanted — he's buying it for the rental income stream. If anything, it's an advantage — it saves him the cost of a period of vacancy, and the cost of marketing the property to tenants. My understanding is that, in places where they have a stable long-term rental market, the sale of tenanted properties is pretty routine. And it's already routine in Ireland for commercial property. So this is not some far-side-of-the-moon aspiration.
Probably not a problem for most however for me, its a big problem, I've avoided any trouble with tenants purely because of my screening.In principle, the fact that a property comes with a tenant who enjoys security of tenure shouldn't be a problem for a professional landlord purchaser, since he wants the property to be tenanted
Remember the engineering principle, the longer a piece of string the more likely it is to break.I've avoided any trouble with tenants purely because of my screening.
With long term lets in Europe, the norm is that the tenant is responsible for the fit out, repairs and maintenance.
If you are a large landlord, that dud could be with you forever or you'll have to write him a very large cheque to get him to go voluntarilyAt some point you'll hit a dud, as long as you have a budget & a plan, you'll weather it.
Not necessarily, that dud could take up a huge amount of your time with all sorts of messing around. The RTB will not be your friend if you try to evict him and if you lose such a case, he really has you over a barrell.If you have 10 properties one dud tenant is manageable.
Landlords have no choice but to continue it. There is a 90 page set of guidelines detailing exactly what you must provide and it is very specific.It should be the same here for long term lets. NAL but I can’t understand why all tenancies here are not bare bones. It makes no sense to me that landlords fit out a rental with so much more than the legal requirements. If tenancies now are for unlimited duration, retrofitting may be compulsory, vacant possession may be difficult, etc etc, it should be the tenants responsibility to supply whatever type and style and quality of furniture, beds, floor and window coverings they want. It seems to me that landlords are allowing themselves to be caught for possibly 10+ years for the on-going maintenance and refurbishment of items they are not required to provide. The only long term lets that need to be fitted out now is student accommodation. It’s puzzling to me why private landlords continue that practice when costs are so high, increases are capped, and ability to leave the market becomes more difficult with every change in the legislation.