Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
MINISTER OF STATE Kathleen Lynch was questioned this afternoon on last night’s decision to axe the mobility allowance and motorised transport grant and replace them with an as-yet-undecided alternative.
During topical issues in the Dáil, Deputies Billy Kelleher and Caomhghín Ó Caoláin both questioned the Minister on the decision, with Ó Caoláin saying he believed “the only conclusion to be drawn is this is another cutback by another name”.
Kelleher said:
When I hear the Department of Health saying they will ringfence funding, you know, it strikes fear into me. Because last year we were given a commitment that mental health funding was ringfenced and it wasn’t, it was snaffled and put into the budget
Kelleher added:
If the best brains in the Department of Health couldn’t come up with it in two years, you are now asking an independent review to come up with a solution in four months.
What should have happened was the scheme should have been allowed to continue for time being, and an independent review group would have been set up to come up with the solutions to the problems…
It’s a heartless cut, Minister.
Lynch said the issue should have been dealt with long ago.
Disappointed
Seán Moynihan, CEO of ALONE, said they are “hugely disappointed” and they are demanding that the new scheme to be put in place will allow equal access to all sectors of society where a need has been assessed.
A figure of between €170 – €300million has been quoted in order to allow access to the scheme to over 65s. We’re unclear as to how these figures were arrived at, as this would equate to approximately 100,000 older people applying for the scheme, which we completely reject. We work with hundreds of older people on a daily basis and are aware of only two or three people in receipt of this allowance.
Concluding, he commented: “What we’re hearing is that there is a slightly ageist agenda, and we’re calling on government to allow all those who are assessed as having a need, no matter what age, to have access to the scheme.”
Fianna Fáil Spokesperson on Social Protection, Willie O’Dea TD, says the news is “another slap in the face for the most vulnerable”.
The Center for Independent Living said it is appalled at the announcement. Michael McCabe, chairperson of Center for Independent Living, described it as “an absolutely outrageous attack on the rights of people with disabilities and flies in the face of the National Disability Strategy”.
He said that “instead of accommodating the inclusion of people with disabilities in the community this will lead to greater exclusion and isolation especially for those living in rural areas”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Frankly, landlords need protection too and this seems to be largely ignored. Half of rent goes back to govt. as tax so it is nowhere near as profitable as the headline rent amount would make you believe. Tenants can cease paying rent and it takes many months and massive expense (court enforcement) to get them out all while the tenant lives rent free and the landlord has to pay the mortgage. Finally a tenant can do extensive damage to a house which one month of rent rarely covers. A balanced protection regime is reasonable but let’s not pretend landlords are the devil incarnate and tenants are all sweetness and sunshine.
@Kevin O’Donnell: There shouldn’t be Landlords to be protected as lords of Land don’t exist
@Kevin O’Donnell:
Agreed, non-payment of rent should mean eviction. We do live in a welfare state (no comparisons with non-welfare state of 1847 please). But the rest if your points are weak.
If anybody damages your property, you can take legal action against them. Additionally, there’s a thing called landlord insurance, no need to be a cheapskate, sign up for it.
If “landlords” don’t like the rental market, luckily they have another option: sell the property.
@Oisín O’Connor: many landlords are selling. So from a policy perspective that govt have it wrong. That doesn’t make my point weak, it makes it accurate. As to your other points: do you really think expensive legal proceedings are the answer? The whole point of regulations and govt action is to solve the problems in a market. This is an obvious one and your response is to leave it the way it is?
@Oisín O’Connor: hard to know where to start in pointing out what’s wrong in what you say. Let’s just concentrate on one of them. What do you think landlord insurance covers? You give the impression that you think it covers against non payment of rent, or damage to property by tenants?
@Oisín O’Connor: Yes I did sell up my properties in Ireland. Now there are even less properties for rent putting even more pressure on rents to rise. now you want more landlords to do the same? Anymore smart ideas?
@Jumperoo: I think Oisin is referring to rent guarantee insurance.
@Kevin O’Donnell: I don’t know why landlords feel like they get special victim status for having to pay the same income tax as everyone else. Especially given that owning a property is a lot less work time wise than actually working for the same income.
@SC: and every landlord was handed the property in a raffle? The majority of landlords worked hard and made financial planning arrangements to invest in a property that would provide, in most cases, an income after retirement.
They don’t deserve to be taxed to the hilt, like many people, who provide an economic generating service.
I fully agree. Rented my house for four years to a professional couple. I was working away. When the property was handed back it took more than the four years rent to carry out repairs. I had no forwarding address for this couple. Needless to say the property will never enter the rental market again. It is cheaper to let it sit idle.
@Kevin O’Donnell: The poor landlords, they have it so tough. Sure sometimes they get burnt so sad.
A lot of people figured they could get somebody else to pay for a mortgage on a house of flat, Buy to Rent, thinking they were going to become property tycoons. Greed is a terrible thing.
Having lived in and seen enough dodgy flats, I feel no sorrow for them
@Gary Kearney: well that’s just like your perspective Dude. Consider though that for a 300K apartment in Dublin a landlord who rents this out will shell out over 125K of their own money in initial deposit, stamp duty, maintenance, tax, service charges and the rest. That is some serious investment. Yes the landlord may make money if they wait 30 years until the mortgage is cleared but then there is CGT to contend with. In short there are easier and shorter ways to invest money and make better returns. If landlords are deterred from investing who will make up the shortfall of providing rental accommodation? The Government have no interest. They sold off their rental stock in the Seventies at pennies in the pound.
@Christopher Gibbons: did you not do yearly inspections? This should of helped you notice any issues earlier and get them fixed to cost of tenant, if they caused the damage. I presume you were registered with the prtb too, in which case your tenants should of been aswell, you could of reported them to the prtb and they would have a record of their next tenancy agreement, the prtb would of been able to begin a legal investigation.
@Gary Kearney: When you lived in ‘dodgy’ flats, would you have been willing or able to pay twice the price for ones that were up to your ideal standards?
@Sam Glynn: “…should of…” “….could of….”. Is English still taught in school?
@Sam Glynn: Hilarious Sam you obviously never rented out a place. The RTB, as it is now called, beginning an investigation against a tenant for not keeping a place up to scratch. I laughed out loud at that one.
@Sean: what are you on about. If he did regular yearly inspections, surely whatever damage was done could have been fixed at the time and the tenants, if caused the damage, would have been charged for this. If he was registered with the rtb, as they are called now, so should his tenants and thus could have reported them. Take it easy, I didn’t write that comment to be attacked over it, I wasn’t being negative to anyone. Just curious as to how a landlord let a place get so bad it took four years to fix afterwards. I don’t know what your laughing out loud at to be honest. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote and just made a fool of yourself.
@Frank McGlynn: i dont know Frank, I would presume so. Let’s hope it’s better than it was in the 80′s. Why do you ask me, do you mistake me for someone else?
@Sam Glynn: @Sam Glynn: I’m laughing because of your lack of knowledge. You don’t appear to know that the PRTB changed its name over two years ago. And I’m laughing because you think the RTB will do anything. Let me explain to you the way it works. You get a bad tenant who wrecks the place and stops paying rent. You go through all the logs and reels of the RTB and get a judgement registered against them in court, you pay 4K to get they judgement enforced in court and eventually you get the tenant out after 18-24 months. At this point you repair the damage and start over and count yourself lucky if you are down less than 24K. The RTB aren’t going to do anything about it. That’s the system. The system sucks which is why landlords are selling up and why rent prices are increasing.
@Sean: still doesn’t answer my question as to why yearly inspections weren’t carried out, thus possibly catching any damage before it got worse and fixing it at a timely manner. I apologise I’ve not had to deal with rtb in over 5 years to know they changed their name from prtb to just rtb, still don’t know why you feel the need to attack me over it. My family and I are facing homelessness after Christmas as our house (in rpz) is going up for sale and can’t find anywhere affordable since got our 112days notice. We’ve treated this property like our own, advised landlord of any issues we’ve noticed with the property that needed attention and fixed anything we could ourselves with her permission. We’ve never been late with rent. But sure u keep laughing at me, why not.
@Sam Glynn: genuinely sorry to hear that Sam and hopefully you will manage to find somewhere else. I wasn’t laughing at you but at your uninformed perception that the RTB might actually do something about rogue tenants instead of chasing landlords out of the sector.
@Johnny Mason:
muppets do exist though
@Sam Glynn:
OK so I call around after a year and I say hi landlord here to inspect the property.. I walk in and notice say the carpet has been destroyed with something. I say ‘we need to replace that and you will need to pay for it’ he says ‘I haver no money I’m on HAP I am broke’ hmmm what to do!!…. I say well you will need to get money and fix this…he says ‘f*%k off out or I wont pay the rent… hmm I say well that it I must evict you on what grounds erm damage while living there.. RTB and Threshold rock up and say that’s not fair its tough look. I issue notice to quit rent stops.. fast forward 24 months
@Kevin O’Donnell: Point taken but the property market inflation is totally out of control and property prices are off the wall. Almost all of the properties in Dublin are being baught by property speculators renting out houses at inflated prices. Yes point taken that houses are damaged by persons who thrash properties when they are being chucked out or behaving anti socially. The majority of tennants are ordinary decent people who just want to make a decent life from themselves and are being exploited by landlords who raise the rent almost monthly. If property speculators or landlords get out of the business and sell off their land to save their investmet maby the rental market will crash and housing rental will revert to the affordable prices in the 90 and early 2000′s but their is no hope of that
And what about renters who just stop paying! Will there be additional powers to remove these renters after a few weeks rather than over the course of a few years?
@Thomas Murphy: how often does that actually happen?
@Thomas Murphy: Buy to let loans are out as banks and would be let providers are faced with the probable increase of interest rates from say 4% to 6% which is an increase of 50% on this cost alone with rents to pay costs held at 4%. To buy to let at the moment under our communist economic high tax culture would be insanity. Meanwhile bedsits are boarded up causing homelessness, more ideological insanity.
@Thomas Murphy: I know if I stopped paying I’d be kicked out pretty quickly. How do people get away with not paying for years? I’m very interested.
@Sam Glynn:
@Sam Glynn: Ill tell you how. You stop paying rent today. Your landlord writes to you giving you 28 days to pay. You dont. He then writes to you giving you another 14 days to leave. You dont. He takes a case to the RTB, he may get a hearing in 3 months. He wins, RTB issue a determination order. You are given ANOTHER 2 weeks to vacate. You dont. He must apply through the courts for an eviction order. Say, another 3 months. Bailiffs arrive. How long is that rent free?
@Ben Coughlan: Have a look at the RTBs determination orders. Theyre on their website. Eye opening.
@Sam Glynn:
Years would be an exception but the normal minimum length of time needed to remove a non paying tenant would be about 9 months but obviously it varies.
Inspections are fine but what if the tenant doesn’t allow the inspection? Your only recourse is the process outlined above which apart from the loss of rent also brings up legal fees of €5-8,000. Getting a judgement against the ex tenant from the RTB would be a complete waste of time and more legal fees, all they have to do is plead inability to pay.
That said, leaving a house 4 years without some kind of a check up would be foolish
@Patrick Nolan: thank you for the info, never realised was so easy for disrespectful tenants to do such things, if you can’t afford to pay rent anymore as a tenant is there anybody to help them out? It’s seems rediculious (but not surprising) that if renting a private property and fall on hard times that some people actually expect that the landlord can afford to put them up for free?! We’re facing homelessness after Xmas as house going up for sale, we can’t actually find anywhere affordable since got our 112days notice and we are not fussy on where we live. I would never consider just staying put and not paying rent, I wouldn’t get a winks sleep. People can be so bad minded. It’s crazy.
@Sam Glynn:
That is a tough situation to be in Sam.
Your best chance is to continue been flexible on location but I see 3 bed semis 80+ kms from Dublin making over the €1,000 pm now
Best of luck with it.
@Patrick Nolan: I’m in the west, would love to stay in West , average for same as you describe here going for 1600 / 1800
If landlords weren’t being taxed to the hilt there would be more of them in the rental game so more houses, more houses for rent, the government might be getting a bit of rental income tax in, but I’d imagine there’s a lot more in rent allowance and hap and rent assistance going out, I could be wrong I have been in the past and will be in the future.
@Eddie: Then they’d get even richer and be able to buy up even more property and be able to push the price even further away from what workers can afford and we will all be rent slaves forever.
@SC: an increase in supply leads to prices going down. Economics 101.
All the government has to do is implement simple legislation to prevent the scenario you outlined. Off the top of my head: more than 3 properties, then the tax rate changes on the additional properties to an unviable amount. Thus, capping the amount of properties a given landlord would own.
@Hellenize Dublin: Everything except increasing supply by building public housing is just giving vulture funds a better grip on our housing stock. Small landlords aren’t able to compete with them as it is. That’s called accumulation of capita
@SC: accumulation of capital and it is also economics 101. People who used the be winners like small landlords are going to be losers as all wealth is increasingly concerntrated.
Sorry about the double post :)
@Hellenize Dublin: You were going fine until you came up with a strategy that would actually reduce supply…
@Gerry Quinn: well I’m not saying I want that scenario, was just trying to address the other commentators concern of landlords owning a myriad of properties and then being able to fix the price (which I wouldn’t like to see either), but I would not support what I outlined, just providing a possible scenario
Full time LL here – I’ll happily sign up to this (and any other) law, if it’s equally possible to evict a tenant quickly who stops paying rent (with no intention/plan to restart), or who wreaks a house and then scampers.
Since 2012 the Gov are still assuming that private landlords are the solution to THEIR public housing shortage. We’re not, but we’re easy to blame.
Also, the daft reports are misleading – they give the increases for newly advertised properties, many are first time rentals, excluding the other 80/90% of pre-existing leases.
Deposit escrow and a tenants register as well as a landlords register is needed. Mandatory sign-up.
@JustOneScoop: good ideas.
@JustOneScoop: this is a good idea, ergo it will fall on deaf ears with FFG
@JustOneScoop:
The ‘bad tenants’ on the register who houses them?
Another epic fail from minister Murphy. Instead of try to alleviate the issue by way of rent caps they give landlords tax breaks and incentives. Rent have risen again by over 11% when there is a maximum of 4% allowed. This FG putting it back to the private sector to sort out their disaster. Which will never work. A profit lead system cannot be expected to deliver social housing.
After the next general election, I fear for Murphy Harris and a couple more, who will be very lucky to retain their seats on the gravey train or should I say the Dail.
@Gasher:
where are the tax breaks and incentives? The rent increase of 4% applies to existing tenancies not new tenancies. The problem is not the small landlord its the build to let and vulture funds who are driving the price up.
- Government punish landlords as some sort of solution to housing issue.
- Landlords sell up and leave the market
- Less places on market to rent
- Homeless queues grow longer and demand for private rental properties further outstrips supply than it does today
- The public protest and complain
- Government further punishes what landlords remain… and on we go
I doubt Fine Gael will side with renters and those being forced into homelessness against the wishes of their own party members, the landlord class.
@Bramley Hawthorne: you obviously have no idea the protections in place for tenants and the lack of protections for landlords. If it was so profitable and such a walk in the park, why are landlords leaving in droves?
@Kevin O’Donnell: agreed. Half the people i know in Ireland who owned a property of any type 5 years ago to rent out have left the market and sold up.
Most bought one for their pension but just not worth the hassle of dealing with renters not paying or causing damage and by the time they paid mortgage, expenses, repairs and then tax on all the rent they were losing money. There will be even less places to rent if people keep selling up and leaving the market.
@Kevin O’Donnell: tax. Simple. We all ain’t stupid
@Bramley Hawthorne: and here was I thinking I was working class…”landlord class”??? WTF? That’s a thing now? Conditions of entry beyond owning property? Assuming my wages get bumped up now too? Do I have to work at all? Do I have to speak wit a posh accent? Muppet
@Greg Kelly: A lot of inept chancers bought property and thought they could make money easily and then sold up when they failed, but globally Ireland is one of the most lucrative rental markets which is why we have so many foreign investors. The likes or Ires REIT are not stupid.
@Greg Kelly: so what’s happening with the house a former landlord sells? Is it demolished, or sent to another country? No, each house sold by a landlord either reduces the tenants count (as a former tenant now bought a house), or comes back on the rental market from another landlord. So, your argument that landlords are fading away defies the logic when you look to the whole picture. I am not making here an argument for the landlords, nor for the tenants, just against obvious lack of logic in the arguments.
@Florin Stroiescu: You forgot to account for increasing population and reducing numbers of landlords.
@Florin Stroiescu:
Your assumption that renters are buying is a fallacy it may be a renter it may not. In any event during conveyance the stock is off the market and that tenant has to vacate and find a new place there isn’t a three way move on a given day…
@SC: The REITs pay negligible tax due to clever accounting structures. They represent a far worse deal for the State because they charge top dollar rent, contribute little to tax and send most of the profits to overseas shareholders. They can also own enough property in a given area to set the prices artificially high knowing they won’t be undercut as they are their own competition.
There are really several different kinds of landlords and they need to be treated differently.
At one end of the scale is the private landlord who owns one property and has a mortgage. Then there is the private landlord who invested in a second property as a form of investment for a retirement pension.
At the other end of the scale are the large property owners and investment companies. These are institutions, and not individuals, whose sole purpose it to maximise the return for the shareholders.
Maybe these two grouping need to be considered separately and different rules applied.
@Niall Ó Cofaigh: Different rules do apply. Institutional landlords don’t pay any tax. Private / small time landlords are taxed to the hilt.
They’re proposing everything except the thing people want – public housing. There are lots of working models all over Europe.
Does this apply to vulture funds I wonder?
Gov put too much emphasis on private landlords to provide housing when its Government’s responsibility re Dept of Housing&Minister to set policies to ensure there is adequate housing stock for our citizens in particular social housing&genuine affordable housing!But 2011-2016 TOTAL housing stock increased by just 0.4%(8,800)
If social housing stock adequately increased&real affordable housing stock increase there would not be so much pressure on the private rental sector.
Traditional landlords have been competing over the past few years with commercial operators such as investment funds or rents but latter get huge tax breaks so the competition is hugely unfair to traditional landlords who have invested in property for income/retirement or just rent out single properties!
@Nuala Mc Namara: re RPZs:there are loophole whereby if property refurbished,then it’s excluded from those measures.I think that commercial operators such as investment funds or rents would more likely have the funds to do that so another advantage over traditional landlords.
Those persons, families excluded from Ireland’s ‘offical’ homeless figures are not in secure tenancies.There is no tenancy agreement and accommodation funded by Section 10 emergency accommodation funding!Why can’t Ireland INCLUDE all Categories of ETHOS like Northern Ireland did last year in their Report? Ireland just uses 3/7Catergories of ETHOS Light Categories, Northern Ireland used 13Catergories of full ETHOS typology!
@Nuala Mc Namara: It’s not just that the huge investment funds have tax breaks- they are also able to sustain short term losses. Over the long term you will almost always make money with property but there could be a few years where the repayments exceed the rental income. Professional investment firms know that and prepare for it and it is part of their business plan. This is accumulation of capital. It is unavoidable in capitalism. There is no saving traditional landlords. We should focus on saving our workers from these funds who will milk us for rent forever if they get the chance.
@SC: traditional landlords provide about 90% of available rental accommodation. Even where they’ve rolled out the red carpet for institutional landlords they will only ever account for 5-10% of the market. The Dundrum, IFSC, Grand Canal Dock, etc.
There is no law that’s says any speculative financial investment you make whether it be property, bonds, stocks, shares or otherwise has to make a worthwhile profit for the purchaser, those are the risks.
I can’t feel sorry for landlords when the vast majority of tenants pay rent. tenants are selected, not forced upon landlords.
@Wendie O’Toole: the problem with your argument is stocks, shares or bonds have strong legal measures to support non-compliance whereas tenants CAN (Not always, that’s agreed) get away with non-payment without any serious consequences. That is something the govt should legislate for. I’m ok with speculative investments not producing instant profits but the govt have tilted the market against the small landlord and the market is losing these actors. Corporate actors are treated quite differently to small private landlords who operate in the same market.
@Kevin O’Donnell: corporate investors are always treated differently in every industry, due to volume, they have a financial buffer against problem tenants, as well as in-house legal teams.
Again, just because you invest in property, it does mean that the government should ensure that you as a landlord turn a risk free profit – all business has risks, as a landlord yours is non-paying tenants. As business you need take steps to minimise the impact this might have on your long term profit within the current legal frame work.
Just as tenants have to live with unscrupulous landlords renting out shoddy properties where there are no legal minimum quality standards, or terminate leases under the pretext of a sale or to live in the property, but then rent it out on airbnb or back on the open market at a much higher rent.
@Wendie O’Toole: you say ‘within the current legal framework’ while commenting on an article about changing the legal framework. Surely times of change should address issues on BOTH SIDES. Enforcing longer notice periods without a quid pro quo on easier termination of non-payers is simply sloppy regulating and tilts the market further away from landlords. Nobody is saying profits should be guaranteed but not addressing an obvious problem in the market lacks intelligence.
It’s too late now but here’s a thought, next time don’t flag rent caps, keep it to your chest.. It drives up rents during the time it takes to implement them.
It’s Christmas soon. Like every year hypocrisy is raising and will be forgotten afterwards. The whole system has to be reviewed and for both sides. They could have discuss that anytime but they choose to do that just before Christmas. I am not sure less tax for landlord would help them to concede reducing the rents, as this also a lot of greed.
The government introduces a 4% a year cap in rent pressure zones and claps themselves on the back for it. That’s a 12 – 16% rise over the next 3 or 4 years. How many tennants are going to have those sort of pay increases in the coming 3/4 years?
Landlords are just speculators who don’t provide any particular value and their role should be taken over by the state. As a bonus, we’d never have to hear them complain abouy their profits being taxed again.
@Wastrel: and you trust the state to provide everyone with homes? Look at the state of the roads, public transport, the HSE, the water infrastructureetc not to mention the state of the current social housing stock (where the % of tenancies in arrears is off the charts).
@Wastrel: small landlords get taxed on rental INCOME not rental profit. It is considered additional income by revenue and taxed accordingly. After paying the mortgage it is often a loss leader. Many landlords look to the long term as the mortgage gets paid over time. Add in a regime where non-paying tenants and substantial damages and the equation doesn’t add up for many. Cue exit from the rental market by small landlords.
have your say