It will be very difficult for large landlords to find buyers for properties with tenants in situ

[Greenbook]

Yes. But, in the same way, employment protection laws make it difficult to get rid of underpeforming employees. Publicans will tell you that equal treatment legislation makes it difficult to exclude problematic customers, etc, etc.

I think the idea here is that if you have professional, large-scale landlording, dealing with a proportion of less-than-desirable tenants within the framework of the regulatory regime for landlording, including protections for tenants, has to be managed as a cost of the business.

You are correct, professional, large-scale landlords with staff and an expert legal team can deal with this. Problem tenants will be a cost of the business and factored in to how much rent is charged on the portfolio overall in the same way as an employer factors in the risk of underperforming staff. In fact the cost of RTB compensation to difficult tenants will be factored in as well as I'm sure employers factor in WRC awards. It'll be far more professional overall. Monthly inspections, formal letters to tenants telling them to rectify faults etc. (A tenant of mine who relocated from Dublin and rented from one of the funds told me about this system).

If you are a 'large' landlord with, say, 5 properties, that is not the case. You just haven't the scale for this and, as I keep stressing, a permanent tenant will be a disaster.

The future is the large, professional landlord. It is just too complex and risky now for the amateur with a small portfolio.

 

[Pauley]

Slight deviation here: I see mention above of "Provision of furniture is mandatory" - and elsewhere that weeding was the responsibility of the landlord.

This is new to me. Any references for this?

I'm recently no longer a landlord - but when I was, I always let unfurnished (and never had any problems or resistance to that - in fact I recommend it as the tenant is more likely to take care of things) and I always made it clear that, as it was a whole house rental, the tenant was responsible for basic things like lawn maintenance (I provided a lawnmower), bulb changing etc.

My understanding was that "basics" like appliances (fridge cooker, washing,microwave) were required - but not furniture in the sense of beds, table, chairs, crockery etc..

 

[Greenbook]

Slight deviation here: I see mention above of "Provision of furniture is mandatory" - and elsewhere that weeding was the responsibility of the landlord.

I had an inspection. The property failed. I was issued with an 'Improvement Notice' ie. things which I must do to be incompliance with the Guidelines. One of the items was weed the garden, so I can only take it that as the the property failed the inspection and the improvement notice was issued to me, weeding the garden is my responsibility.

Here are the Guidelines - incredible level of detail so I am sure weeds are in there somewhere! Guidelines March 2024

 

[ClubMan]

One of the items was weed the garden,

Hasn't the RTB heard about rewilding and no mow May?

 

[Dermot]

Pauley said:
Slight deviation here: I see mention above of "Provision of furniture is mandatory" - and elsewhere that weeding was the responsibility of the landlord.

I do not see anything about " weeding " in minimum standards legislation.

 

[Pauley]

My reference to "Weeding" was to another post on AAM by Greenbook - who's since commented above..

I can "kinda" see those standards (appendix "A" in the link Greenbook provided above) being applied where a landlord takes on social housing responsibilities through HAP or the like and a council has its own set of standards beyond the minimum to maintain (or even the case for "weeding" if it's a common area in say an apartment complex thats being refered to). But where a fully private tenant is renting from a private landlord and both parties willingly enter an agreement that covers who's responsible for what, it's simply more over-regulation and a further deterrent.

The way those guidlines get into minor issues like "architraves" etc being in good condition - and presumably hold the landlord responsible through an improvement notice for what could very well have been tenant damage, is just ridiculous...

Our gov will never "get" that all stick and no carrott is what's led them to the disfunctional situation we're in today...

 

[Greenbook]

The way those guidlines get into minor issues like "architraves" etc being in good condition - and presumably hold the landlord responsible through an improvement notice for what could very well have been tenant damage, is just ridiculous...

One of my fears is that as the years go on, there will be more and more detailed enforcement of these guidelines and the guidelines will become ever more detailed. Plus ever more expensive work will be needed to comply - see for example the ratio of open window size to room size, a lot of older houses won't comply unless larger windows are installed. Another reason why I am giving up as a landlord.

 

[Dermot]

I have had my fill of " robot " inspectors who are acting under "Executive Orders " like Trump and outside of legislation. They need to fill a "quota " of failures.

 

[bipped]

As Greenbook points out, the provision of furniture is now mandatory, and there are detailed regulatory specifications. The regulatory specifications happened because of the notoriously poor quality of furniture and appliances that landlords used to provide.

When did furniture become mandatory?

Edit: Just saw Greenbook link
Edit 2: Can’t find where it says furniture is mandatory

 

[Greenbook]

Edit 2: Can’t find where it says furniture is mandatory

It doesn't say directly that furnishing is mandatory.

However, a landlord (it is part of the Structural section of the Guidelines) must: "Ensure that all furnishings in the house maintained in good condition & repair?"

See also Appendix C which says that the Minister can make further regulations as to the quality of furnishings.

Logically, if the tenant was supplying the furniture, the landlord wouldn't have to maintain them in good condition and repair. Likewise, why make further regulations about the the quality and condition of the tenant's furniture. So while it is not saying it directly, my interpretation is that it is for the landlord to supply.

Gardens must also be maintained in a proper state of repair - presumably this covers the landlord's requirement to weed (and, presumably, mow the grass as well!)

 

[TomEdison]

When did furniture become mandatory?

On checking, I think you're right. I don't think there is an express requirement in the legislation that the landlord must furnish rented residential property; it's simply a well-established market expectation that he will do so. (And it may have become the expectation because, in the past, there was an incentive to do so, in the form of an exemption from rent restriction legislation.)

Statements in the guidelines about the landlord maintaining the furniture need to be read in a context in which the landlord invariably does provide the furniture. If he provides it, he must maintain it, it must comply with standards, etc, etc. But that's not enough to create an absolute legal requirement to provide furniture.

This could be similar to the situation with the selling of properties subject to a subsisting residential tenancy — the law permits it, but it rarely happens. Something similar could be true for the letting of unfurnished residential properties.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

If you are a 'large' landlord with, say, 5 properties, that is not the case. You just haven't the scale for this and, as I keep stressing, a permanent tenant will be a disaster.

Which is why I suggested that the number should be raised - although I would prefer it eliminated altogether

 

[Greenbook]

Which is why I suggested that the number should be raised - although I would prefer it eliminated altogether

Not a hope of that happening politically; caving into the landlord lobby etc. etc.

I really think there is no future in this anymore unless you are operating at scale. One slip with a badly chosen tenant and you could have a nightmare on your hands that you can't escape from. Expect increased inspections and higher standards. Only a true large landlord can cope with this.