Serve notice that you want property for your own use.
Reports: Government will retain rent controls for existing landlords but lift them for new investors
- Thread starter Mocame
- Start date
My understanding was you get a new tenancy every 4 years with the same tenant. It resets. It's an opportunity to not to renew. Only theres no more 4yr tenancies. So a new 6yr tenancy started on 1/12/2017. Then again on 1/12/2023 then will again on 1/12/2029 all with the same tenant.
I could be wrong. I'm no expert.
I know when I choose not to renew my tenants 4yr tenancy they opened a dispute with PRTB. I assume they didn't get satisfaction because they disappeared rather than fight it. Well after over holding as usual.
Have to say I'm not going to fact check an AI response which is usually incomplete and this example is not showing anything about when a landlord can end the lease.
Flip flopping a rental to owner occupied is chaotic for tenants. It's partly the cause of the anti landlord legislation. Cause and effect. Cake and eat. I'm a landlord, now I'm not, now I am. Etc..
Thanks so much, really appreciate that. So a tenancy that started during the years when a four or six year cycle was the rule stays on that until the tenancy finishes - either the tenant leaves or the landlord wants to sell etc. Will pass this on to our friend
Just to be clear the 4yr tenancy switched to a 6yr tenancy when the last 4yr tenancy ended. 1/12/2017.
No one is still on 4yr tenancy. They've all switched to 6yrs.
At that's my opinion. I haven't looked at this new proposed legislation.
I think the move to no no fault evictions for a number of years is fair. It’s part of professionalising the rental market. Too often I see landlords see the house as their home that they are letting someone stay in. Tenants are afraid of a nephew moving back from Australia needing it. It’s why I’d have always prefer to stay in a development owned by a company.
That said six years is a long time, I’d have gone with four or five.
There needs to be an online calculator to figure out when tenancies are up.
Am I correct with 2014-2018-2024-2030?
That said six years is a long time, I’d have gone with four or five.
There needs to be an online calculator to figure out when tenancies are up.
Am I correct with 2014-2018-2024-2030?
Why those years?
When the 6 years tenancy finished, if it happened after the 12 June 2022, the new tenancy became unlimited.
Sorry. Trying to figure out where a tenancy that started in 2014 is at.
The 6th year tenancy started in December 2017 ended in December 2023 and now it's an unlimited tenancy.
Any 6th year tenancy ending after June 2022 is now unlimited. So it's the case here: 4 years, 6 years and now unlimited
So I was wrong I didn't know about the 2022 I was out of it by then.
More here...
www.rtb.ie
More here...
Tenancies of Unlimited Duration | Residential Tenancies Board
RTB operates Ireland's National Tenancy Register and resolving disputes between Landlords, tenants and third parties. Governed by residential Tenancies Act 2004. View more information on landlords and tenancies.
www.rtb.ie
Impossible to keep up with the constant reg twists and turns and changes. Utterly dysfunctional on every level.
So a Further Part4 cycle was actually just like a new tenancy except that the notice periods were from day 1 of the original lease. After Jun22, when any existing Further Part4 cycles finish, the new roll-over tenancy is unlimited. Thanks.
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 44
I really do not understand this concept that houses/apartments are not being developed and built because of rent controls.
As if the only option out there for developers and builders was to supply for the needs of landlords?
There is a huge underbelly of owner-occupiers trying to get a foot hold into accommodation also. They seem to have been side-lined in recent times, or at least that is my impression.
What am I missing?
Landlords do not build homes. They compete with the rest of the civilian population (the non-landlord part) for ownership of limited housing stock suitable for sustainable community development. Ergo, putting pressure on the price of housing.
As if the only option out there for developers and builders was to supply for the needs of landlords?
There is a huge underbelly of owner-occupiers trying to get a foot hold into accommodation also. They seem to have been side-lined in recent times, or at least that is my impression.
What am I missing?
Landlords do not build homes. They compete with the rest of the civilian population (the non-landlord part) for ownership of limited housing stock suitable for sustainable community development. Ergo, putting pressure on the price of housing.
It's the lack of housing and increase in population that put pressure on the housing. Not landlords.
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 44
Thanks @AlbacoreA totally appreciate that sentiment.
The lack of housing and increase in population is certainly putting pressure on housing.
So why is that alone by itself not enough to induce developers and builders to start building to meet demand?
From what I'm reading/hearing, RPZ's are the cause of dis-investment in housing development? Not an increase in population.
I'm only going by what is presented in front of me regularly.
Here is a thought over space and time -
I remember the creation of NAMA and the controversy it undertook.
In fairness to them, a very small agency, they seemed to have have done a great job in offloading the over-priced property folio of the defunct bank sector, aka 'pillar' banks, in a reasonably efficient and uncontroversial manner. If I'm not mistaken, ultimately providing a profitable return to the State's balance sheet!
Highly impressive!
Now I'm thinking, what were the inducing terms for foreign corporate investors to take up these property portfolios at the initial, or near, asking price before the market had actually reduced the price by 50% on average? Why would they pay a false, over-inflated market price?
So they could invest in building property for maximum market rents? And are now scuppered by govt RPZ's which was not part of the deal?
My impression - property prices fall following the NINJA loan epidemic by financial institutions in US.
Europe, namely the € and £ are caught on the hop. Ireland, in particular (along along with others) were ripe to fall.
A collapse of the entire monetary and economic system was oncoming.
So Ireland said - we will bailout out Europe! or Germany to be more precise. Not without a nudge from Trichet and the 'economic bomb'.
What did Ireland (and others like Greece, Portugal etc) get in return?
Quantitative Easing on massive scale began from the US. Who were also bankrupt but as they are in charge of the monetary supply they can print their own money. So much so, that peak property valuations began to be restored. Along with bank balance sheets, phew!
Those bankrupted bondholders that got a free pass from Ireland were duty bound to direct all the QE money printing back into the property portfolios to restore the equilibrium.
And how would they do that? They bought NAMA portfolios at pre-crash valuations. Restoring Irelands property balance sheet.
All wonderful accounting and financial jiggery-pokery! At its finest!!
Until...it all feeds into the lives of ordinary working people, accommodation crisis, Brexit, rise of Trump, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Israeli genocide of Gaza.....it all feeds in, at micro and macro level, in a corrupted centralised, corportasied banking economy.
For those who were there, here is a Kilkenomic chat show with Pat Kenny, David McWilliams and others as a fond reminder
www.youtube.com
The lack of housing and increase in population is certainly putting pressure on housing.
So why is that alone by itself not enough to induce developers and builders to start building to meet demand?
From what I'm reading/hearing, RPZ's are the cause of dis-investment in housing development? Not an increase in population.
I'm only going by what is presented in front of me regularly.
Here is a thought over space and time -
I remember the creation of NAMA and the controversy it undertook.
In fairness to them, a very small agency, they seemed to have have done a great job in offloading the over-priced property folio of the defunct bank sector, aka 'pillar' banks, in a reasonably efficient and uncontroversial manner. If I'm not mistaken, ultimately providing a profitable return to the State's balance sheet!
Highly impressive!
Now I'm thinking, what were the inducing terms for foreign corporate investors to take up these property portfolios at the initial, or near, asking price before the market had actually reduced the price by 50% on average? Why would they pay a false, over-inflated market price?
So they could invest in building property for maximum market rents? And are now scuppered by govt RPZ's which was not part of the deal?
My impression - property prices fall following the NINJA loan epidemic by financial institutions in US.
Europe, namely the € and £ are caught on the hop. Ireland, in particular (along along with others) were ripe to fall.
A collapse of the entire monetary and economic system was oncoming.
So Ireland said - we will bailout out Europe! or Germany to be more precise. Not without a nudge from Trichet and the 'economic bomb'.
What did Ireland (and others like Greece, Portugal etc) get in return?
Quantitative Easing on massive scale began from the US. Who were also bankrupt but as they are in charge of the monetary supply they can print their own money. So much so, that peak property valuations began to be restored. Along with bank balance sheets, phew!
Those bankrupted bondholders that got a free pass from Ireland were duty bound to direct all the QE money printing back into the property portfolios to restore the equilibrium.
And how would they do that? They bought NAMA portfolios at pre-crash valuations. Restoring Irelands property balance sheet.
All wonderful accounting and financial jiggery-pokery! At its finest!!
Until...it all feeds into the lives of ordinary working people, accommodation crisis, Brexit, rise of Trump, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Israeli genocide of Gaza.....it all feeds in, at micro and macro level, in a corrupted centralised, corportasied banking economy.
For those who were there, here is a Kilkenomic chat show with Pat Kenny, David McWilliams and others as a fond reminder
Kilkenomics 2012: Max Keiser & Pat Kenny
The full uncut Pat Kenny Rte show from Kilkenomics 2012 Friday 2nd NovemberFeaturing Pat Rabbit (Irish Minister for communication & Resources)Max KeiserPat K...
www.youtube.com
That's because the media and conspiracists like a simple boogie man to vilify. The Govt plays into that narrative with ineffective legislation like RPZ that gives the impression they are fixing the landlord problem and protecting tenants.
Except in two decades of anti landlord and pro bias tenant legislation it hasn't fixed the problem, it's just made it worse. Because landlords were never the problem. They are symptom not a cause.
RPZ feed that narrative.
Rent controls are like heroin to politicians - you do em once and your hooked….i think what you say is exactly how international capital will look at it….creating little islands of market rents in a sea of price controls is an unstable equilibrium begging for a government of the left to come and ‘fix’ it later.
I doubt that any landlord flip flops like that; landlord one minute, owner occupier the next. 6 years is a long time and I wonder how attractive the new system will be for the small landlord.
I checked around again online, those do seem to be the systems in France and Belgium
In France, 3 years is somewhat the norm. However, during this period, LL can give notice in a limited number of situations (a bit like currently in Ireland). Note: the tenants might also have to give 3 months notice if they break the lease without justification.
Once in place, the LL can only review the rent within an indexation system (if the lease allows it) and between lease (within some limits).
Once in place, the LL can only review the rent within an indexation system (if the lease allows it) and between lease (within some limits).