Taoiseach: "Possible ban on evictions during energy crisis"

[AlbacoreA]

As someone who was both a LL and tenant at the same time I can tell you that if 90% of small LLs are fine they would not be hitting the exit button like they have been.
Now for balance of power. When I was renting the LL gave me notice to sell. It was starting to get really difficult to find anywhere and when your circumstances are not secure its not a great feeling but this "home" idea is nonsense. I never thought of the rented property as my home. I like many had rented my home out to tenants and moved. These were long term rentals also. These emotive matters are not simple.
Now when i needed to sell my rented house (previous home) the tenants (on 60% below market) overheld and stopped paying the rent. As a LL I can tell you "try it sometime". I didnt do that to my LL who didnt give me correct/any formal notice etc, but so what.... when I needed a few week a the end, he was sound about it. (again no need for rtb)
The rtb and the gov made things bad for me as a renter coz LL sold maybe on advice of colleagues and friends etc with things changing so fast and screwed me as LL so no one wins here. I would say that when this was happening I would feel from a vulnerability perspective there is not much in it between a LL and a tenant. If I had to push it it was worse as a LL. Things were so much better before the gov got involved. - and I was only a renter for most of that and main thing was trying to get the deposit back.

I assume he means that "90%" most LLs are good landlords. Not that they are fine as in happy.

 

[wondering]

Landlords did not and will not sign up to solving the housing problem or acting as Social Welfare officers.

I said no such thing.

 

[Leo]

@Leo, Feel free to respond in the thread of course, but I ask you not to quote me again out of context to go on some kind of rant.

All points you touch on have been covered by others in the thread.

If you don't like being quoted, perhaps it would be best not post.

If you want to elaborate on what power you think having a set of keys endows on a landlord, then please do share.

 

[The Horseman]

It is not just a commercial transation. There are people's lives involved.

It's not the same as work/employment either. If you leave a job, generally speaking you can get another job before long.

If you leave your apartment/flat, in this country at the moment, you're looking at homelessness in most cases.

As well as this, it's a very big step for most people to move (unless you live out of a suitcase).

Long-term tenants (i.e. non-short term) should not be forced to move unless there's an exceptional reason to do so.

The duration of a tenancy should be worked out prior to moving in. If someone signs up for say, 5 years, then that should be guaranteed (Obviously a change of law would be needed for this).

This idea that all tenants in Ireland should live in a permanent state of 'what if' is not on!


There are basic human rights involved. They are basic!

It is definitely not zero-sum or doesn't have to be. Everyone can have rights and respect each others rights without other's right being diminished in any way.

It is the States responsibility to support people not other private citizens.

Renting is a commercial trans. If people want stability either get a mortgage or get the State to house them.

A mortgage is living in as you reference living in a State of "what if" . It only stops being "what if" when the mortgage is paid.

How exactly is it fair I as a private citizens rights are less than another's. Should the State be able to say to you that you have a spare room we are passing a law that you must rent it out?

 

[wondering]

Things were so much better before the gov got involved.

I agree in part. Regulation is necessary, but not the way they went about it.

 

[AlbacoreA]

There were too many problems with it to escape regulation. Unfortunately the regulation was all one sided.

 

[KOW]

There should be training or verification to ensure a basic standard of professionalism in a landlord, regardless of whether they are a big or small landlord.

For a long time I was on the side of the smaller landlord. Now, it matters less, because the main thing I care about is professionalism (by which I mean just the basics of how to treat people, respecting boundaries, knowing the law, etc).

Training to be a landlord. Holy God. Have you lost the plot.

 

[KOW]

Training to be a landlord. Holy God. Have you lost the plot.

Take last comment back. Maybe a joint course for tenants to ensure a basic standard of professionalism from a tenant regardless of who they are.

 

[wondering]

Leo, You should note that I've been quoted plenty of times in the thread, 8 pages long now and no issue.

If anyone wants clarification on the point that Leo finds difficult, feel free to ask.
(It's fairly self-evident though I think).

 

[wondering]

It is the States responsibility to support people not other private citizens.

Ok, can't disagree with that. (Not sure why you're addressing it to me).

Renting is a commercial trans.

It is but there's more to it.

If people want stability either get a mortgage or get the State to house them.

The choice to rent long-term is normal in Europe. It's not here. That should change, in my view. (Someone posted a link on this earlier)

Anything that's agreed to should be voluntary, whether from the tenant side, or landlord side. In other words - there should be nothing compelling anyone to let long-term if it doesn't suit them / the business model.

A mortgage is living in as you reference living in a State of "what if" . It only stops being "what if" when the mortgage is paid.

I was referring to the risk for a tenant, where a note could come through the door at any time saying we're selling etc.

How exactly is it fair I as a private citizens rights are less than another's.

No idea what that's referring to.

Should the State be able to say to you that you have a spare room we are passing a law that you must rent it out?

No, of course not.
If they want something like that to happen, the only way is to incentivise it - i.e. opt-in if you want to.

 

[wondering]

Maybe a joint course for tenants to ensure a basic standard of professionalism from a tenant regardless of who they are.

Both tenants and landlords, I'd be fine with that.

There are courses for hotel management, etc. Why not for managing lettings.

 

[AlbacoreA]

Well this thread took a bizarre turn.

 

[RonnieShinbal88]

I'm happy to stay in if they do something to reduce the risk of non-paying tenants.
Maybe you could get enrollment in an insurance scheme administered by the RTB, that pays out rent when tenants don't pay, if you commit to longer tenure leasing.
Tenants could register with the RTB and pay a fee to cover the insurance premiums if they want a longer lease.

Side steps the political issue of giving handouts or breaks to landlords although the usual political opportunists would make a big deal of tenants having to pay anything even if the premia were quite small.

 

[KOW]

Landlord since 2002. Remember in the early days bad tenant no rent etc. Threatened me when I confronted him about not paying rent. Id be shot etc. Made a few phone calls checked out as best as I could if this tenant was waffling or if his threats were something to worry about. Went in to property and removed him. Not something I wanted to do I had no choice. Property destroyed. Hugely stressful to say the least.
If I was to the same today it would cost me thousands.
Today the risks involved in renting out property are mental. Maybe an actuary could work out exactly what affect a tenant inflicts when they pay no rent for two years on the viability of a rental say over the previous ten years. Look at todays yield on rentals. Consider all the factors and stay away.
Landlords are not running for no reason.

 

[RonnieShinbal88]

It's fairly ubiquitous in markets that if you tie your money or assets up for longer you get a higher yield, either the government or the tenants need to fund that one way or another as they are the beneficiaries. You can't interfere in the market and lock in landlords for longer but not increase yields. It's clear we have a need for short term rentals regardless of what percentage of the market those are. You have lots of people arriving in the country that need short term accom until a long term solution is found, students, people moving out from home for the first time etc. You don't want these people taking up long term lettings, its just obvious that we need short term landlords. Locking them up against their will will flush them from the market.

 

[AlbacoreA]

You can always break a lease/tenancy early through mutual agreement. I guess you could say thats primarily the tenant dictating that. But the problem has been with landlords terminating tenancies for fake reasons so often that is now a unsustainable for tenants.

 

[RonnieShinbal88]

Just one more thought on this, the general movement seems to be toward the right to housing trumping property rights. If we are going down this route then I don't think it's fair to stop at buy to lets. Some of our politicians may have a few spare rooms/huge houses (looking at you Mary Lou). Spare rooms should be fair game too for housing refugees and the homeless, it's only right that our leaders lead by example.

 

[The Horseman]

No idea what that's referring

It is my asset to do with what I want. Exactly the same way your car, house and your savings are yours to do what you want.

Should people's savings be taken by the State and used to purchase property to house renters at rate the State deems fair?

 

[RonnieShinbal88]

You can always break a lease/tenancy early through mutual agreement. I guess you could say thats primarily the tenant dictating that. But the problem has been with landlords terminating tenancies for fake reasons so often that is now a unsustainable for tenants.

By fake reasons I presume you mean ending a tenancy only to restart another one at a higher rent? That is now being regulated much more tightly by the RTB.

Other than that landlords are free to sell, if a landlord wants to issue a vacation notice to sell for example, the current proposed moratorium would block them from doing that and selling (it is practically impossible to sell in this country with tenants in situe, even though SinnFein want to enforce this). Many landlords have only committed to providing short term supply, they haven't signed up for long term supply. If you interfere in the market to block them from issuing terminations to sell their place then the possibility of short term landlords ceases to exist. We need short term landlords to provide the supply for short term demand, otherwise people renting temporarily are going to be competing with people who need long term accom for the limited or shrinking long term supply and the crisis worsens.

You can say we need more long term supply but where does that come from, you either incentivise the short term supply to lock in somehow long term or create it separately (it's the governments job after all). You can't seize the assets of people who don't want to have their assets tied in long term and never signed up for that to provide long term supply .

 

[AlbacoreA]

By fake reasons I presume you mean ending a tenancy only to restart another one at a higher rent? That is now being regulated much more tightly by the RTB.

Other than that landlords are free to sell, if a landlord wants to issue a vacation notice to sell for example, the current proposed moratorium would block them from doing that and selling (it is practically impossible to sell in this country with tenants in situe, even though SinnFein want to enforce this). Many landlords have only committed to providing short term supply, they haven't signed up for long term supply. If you interfere in the market to block them from issuing terminations to sell their place then the possibility of short term landlords ceases to exist. We need short term landlords to provide the supply for short term demand, otherwise people renting temporarily are going to be competing with people who need long term accom for the limited or shrinking long term supply and the crisis worsens.

You can say we need more long term supply but where does that come from, you either incentivise the short term supply to lock in somehow long term or create it separately (it's the governments job after all). You can't seize the assets of people who don't want to have their assets tied in long term and never signed up for that to provide long term supply .

I get all that. But we didn't get here without people gaming the system. No smoke without fire etc. Even now we have frequent LLs on another forum giving out because they cant instantly evict someone from their house. As for the RTB the fine is often considered worth it by many. So its not a deterrent.

I agree we need to incentivize long term rentals. But its often the lack of LL protections that causes them to seek constant short term rentals. It what pushed many to AirBnB. The Govt and the usually lobby groups seem to miss or deliberately ignore this. I would be interested in how long the average LL stays in the business. I would expect for the majority it not a short term business.