I'll have a go at answering some of your questions and maybe offer some advice to help.
Consider this:
You dont pay me the rent so I take you to the PRTB why cant there be a fund to temporarily cover the landlord for lost rent? He has to pay it back once the judgement goes for or against him (with interest if against). He cant register his next tenancy if he doesnt pay?
There can't be a fund because this is assuming the landlord is 100% in the right. There is instances where the landlord has failed miserably to fulfill his/her obligations and the tenant could withhold rent as a consequence. Both are in the wrong so its basically a case of wait and see who is more in the wrong.
I rent an apt to one guy and theres a spare bedroom in it. He (according to PRTB) can lease a room out to a couple if he chooses and I cant stop him? What if I rented to a single person to avoid too much wear a tear?
Cover yourself in the lease. Make it so that the terms include that rent stays at the current amount for the term agreed on the basis that the property is let to mrx and mrx alone. State that the rent is at a reduced rate because it is being let to a single occupant.
If an tenant doesnt agree with a rent increase they can have the case referred to the PRTB and God knows how long that would take. I mean I am supplying a service is it not my right to charge what I want? If I am stupid enough to charge way too much nobody will pay?
The rent increase should be in line with market value, you can't simply up it 100% knowing he can't pay just to get rid of him as we all have our rights. You can have 1 increase per year and if it is in line with market rates there shouldn't be an issue.
How has it been allowed to be underresourced? There are alot of rental properties at €70 a go. If there are a set series of rules that govern these tenancies surely the decisions become quite straightforward.
€70 a pop won't fund it, but I reckon landlords would pay higher for a better service or at least a differnet pay scale and not a standard €70 across the board.
Maybe if there was a judgement against a bad tenant maybe they should lose the automatic right to the 4 year tenancy?
It all depends on the severity of the case, if it something serious it generally ends up with a parting of ways anyway.
I dont get how at the end of all this fixed term agreement can override the PRTB rules in terms of notice of departure, deposit return if leaving early etc? How can that be? Then what is the point of PRTB rules?
I kind of get the jist of what your saying here and would agree that the PRTB rules should over ride if they are to make full sense.
Landlords represent thousands of accomodation places that otherwise would have to be found. If this service was denied for even one month the country would be screwed yet we are treated with almost contempt by many tenants. I owe you a fair service for a fair rent but we are owed some protection for the risks we take.
Its not so much a service as a business, and landlords are in it for the money nothing else, they are not in it for the greater good and nor should they be. Your last line is spot on, but even though it may not seem that way there are ways to protect yourself and must of them ly in the lease. Alot of landlords seem to pay little thought to the contents of their lease and many tenants don't read them, but you definitely need to have at A1. Get a solicitor to look one over if you like and then use the same one as a template for all others.
I just dont know why it is so hard to kick out tenants who arent paying.
this is definitely the main bone of contention with all landlords and something needs to be done to offer more protection. Tenants deserve security of tenure and they have that now with the 4.5 yr leases, but I think that there should be a database of tenants from which landlords can check to select those with a good history. It would work much the same as a credit rating and might deter some of the chancers from getting away with their current tricks.