My understanding is that they would take you to either the District Court or the Circuit Court. It is then up to the judge/jury to decide whether you are guilty or not. The Guards would also be involved. I don't think they can try criminal offences themselves, but they can bring you to Court like the Director of Public Prosecutions can.
The Four Core Problems with the New Rental Rules
- Thread starter Greenbook
- Start date
They would have to create a Judicial system within the RTB to do this.
Would create an other layer of bureaucracy within RTB at an outrageous cost to everyone.
The whole proposals as they currently stand are ill thought out and even mid-term are going the opposite direction of what they say were intended.
More importantly they have broken trust with Landlords in particular and will take many years to repair if ever
Would create an other layer of bureaucracy within RTB at an outrageous cost to everyone.
The whole proposals as they currently stand are ill thought out and even mid-term are going the opposite direction of what they say were intended.
More importantly they have broken trust with Landlords in particular and will take many years to repair if ever
If it is law then all the RTB will be doing is reporting you and providing evidence. The law will do the rest. But even if it wasnt made a criminal offence, its possible to give the RTB the power to punish you with amounts equal to several years rental income.
First may I complement all subscribers for exploring all possibilities on this topic.It is very informative.I read there are billions of euro on deposit in Irish banks by ordinary folk.So I raise this point again
What is to stop(within the Law) a cash buyer purchasing a property with tennant in situ @ below market vale,serving mandatory notice in order to move spouse/partner in(who are temporarily,amicably separated) resolving their differences and reletting the property.Morality aside it's just another day at the office
What is to stop(within the Law) a cash buyer purchasing a property with tennant in situ @ below market vale,serving mandatory notice in order to move spouse/partner in(who are temporarily,amicably separated) resolving their differences and reletting the property.Morality aside it's just another day at the office
What makes you think it can be relet at open market value? At the moment a property needs to be out of the rental market for two years before it can be exempt from RPZ requirements. There is no clarification on what the exemptions will be after 1March (unless I've missed something)
If the tenant left after being served a notice, it can't be let again at market value. Some details might be provided on how long this applies but they haven't yet. I am pretty sure any loophole encouraging a tenant to be given notice to relet at market rate will be looked at.
LarryScott
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 544
Look up "rtb notice of termination guide" on google.
You or a family member must live in the property for at least 12 months.
It takes 2 years to clear the RPZ rent and return to market rent. Assuming that rule is maintained, you would need to live in it for 2 years and then you could get market rent again.
Alternatively, you could live in it for 1 year and leave it vacant for the 2nd year.
At the end of the day, any rental yield would be acceptable for the buyer. If the rent is 50% of market rent, then the buyer bids 50% of market price of the property. If accepted, then they get a reasonable rental yield for what they paid, even if much lower than the house is worth.
There is the potential upside if the tenant leaves, you can get the full price selling with vacant possession.
I was talking about the new rules and resetting to market rent. I don't think any details have been given on how long the "ban" to reset to market price applies after a tenant is "terminated". Could be 2 years but that has not been confirmed.
LarryScott
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 544
Ahh fair enough. So, you can say "indefinite" and then have to stay for at least 12 months.
Presumably, "indefinite" means you haven't decided how long yet.
From Dr. Michael Byrne in the Housing Committee last week - one the left wing academics with the ear of government
"For the avoidance of doubt, the majority of tenancies would be categorised as tenancies under a large landlord under this proposed new legislation. All of those tenants will have lifetime security of tenure. It will not be possible to evict them as long as they meet their obligations. Those tenants will have the strongest security of rights in Europe."
So we now havde the strongest security of tenure rights in Europe ie. no other European country has taken this step. We also have one of the strictest rent control regimes in the world.
This is also the permanent system from now on and won't change
"The other thing is that it would be really helpful for landlords to get the message that this new regulatory regime is a stable and lasting framework,"
The core problem again - how is that a balanced system or attractive to landlords
"For the avoidance of doubt, the majority of tenancies would be categorised as tenancies under a large landlord under this proposed new legislation. All of those tenants will have lifetime security of tenure. It will not be possible to evict them as long as they meet their obligations. Those tenants will have the strongest security of rights in Europe."
So we now havde the strongest security of tenure rights in Europe ie. no other European country has taken this step. We also have one of the strictest rent control regimes in the world.
This is also the permanent system from now on and won't change
"The other thing is that it would be really helpful for landlords to get the message that this new regulatory regime is a stable and lasting framework,"
The core problem again - how is that a balanced system or attractive to landlords
I remember talking to Michael years ago and him telling me how great all sorts of investments were. They main one he was raving about was peer to peer lending. I believe he lost a lot of money there. I've listened to his podcasts and I gather he is all in on buy to lets now. He never struck me as a sensible investor, just someone who goes all in in his next idea until it bites him.
He is simply a nice guy who has a good job in IT and is good at saving and cutting back on spending, but always believes he has somehow cracked the code of investing and trying to retire early that people on year have been doing for many years.
I'll read his article out of curiosity but he is by no means the guru he thinks he is or that his subscribers think he is. He is one big economic shock away from ruin. No diversification to speak of at all.
Just read it. As expected, he has no idea of his level of risk at all. Totally blind to it. He is in debt up to his eyeballs, bought a heap of properties through a company, is now going to be a large landlord, with all the enhanced problems that will bring him. He is so out on the ledge at this point its scary. Yet he thinks he is sitting pretty.
He is simply a nice guy who has a good job in IT and is good at saving and cutting back on spending, but always believes he has somehow cracked the code of investing and trying to retire early that people on year have been doing for many years.
I'll read his article out of curiosity but he is by no means the guru he thinks he is or that his subscribers think he is. He is one big economic shock away from ruin. No diversification to speak of at all.
Just read it. As expected, he has no idea of his level of risk at all. Totally blind to it. He is in debt up to his eyeballs, bought a heap of properties through a company, is now going to be a large landlord, with all the enhanced problems that will bring him. He is so out on the ledge at this point its scary. Yet he thinks he is sitting pretty.
Last edited:
The main problem with his analysis is he assumes the property will rise in line with inflation. As he will own 5, he is a large LL. He cannot get vacant possession to sell, so the house will be sold on a yield basis when he wants to sell it. It will not sell at the same value as other vacant properties at that time.
The below goes through the numbers over the next 10 years. To simplify the calcs I assume he is an all cash investor.
Basically if rents increase by 2% per annum, but inflation increases by 5% per annum, in real terms the value of his house is down - alot.
Year1, 2026: Rent of 2,200 per month = 26,400 per year
Year10, 2036: assuming increases of 2% annually that can go up to 31,550per year (26,400*1.02^10)
Now, if he sells the house in 2036 at the same yield he bought it at (i.e. 8.8% (26,400/300,000)), he will get €358,530 for it in 2036 (31,550/8.8%)
The issue is that if inflation rises by 5% in the meantime, then in real terms his principal is only worth €220,105 in todays money (358,530/1.05^10). But he paid €300,000 for it in todays money. He effectively has an asset that is reducing in value, and the income from that asset is also reducing in real terms.
Full table below, but the bottom line is the principal of the "investment" has lost significant value in real terms. I used 5% in the example as inflation has averaged 4.94% over the last 5 years (CPI index Table CPM01 Oct20-Oct25).
That is the key to these rules.
Your costs will increase as well as the property ages. You can also bet that as you are locked in permanently, there will be ever more frequent inspections requiring all sorts of 'repairs' and 'improvements'. If the tenants want new furniture, a quiet word with the Inspector and it's on your instruction list (criminal liability for not complying).