Government to cut rent supplement

thebman · 29-01-2012 2:41am

n97 mini wrote: »

It's nothing to do with humble pie.

Work or prospects = demand = prices hold up.

No work or prospects = no demand = slump.

Places like Longford, Leitrim, Cavan or Kerry are fooked. Places in or around the cities, while not as good as the were, will still hold up.

I live in a high demand area, one of the main commuter belts.

murphaph · 29-01-2012 12:58pm

n97 mini wrote: »

It's nothing to do with humble pie.

Work or prospects = demand = prices hold up.

No work or prospects = no demand = slump.

Places like Longford, Leitrim, Cavan or Kerry are fooked. Places in or around the cities, while not as good as the were, will still hold up.

This is what I've been saying. The effects will be highly regional. Real urban rents will remain high(ish) as people relocate from the Longfords and Kerrys to the Dublins and Corks. What was commuter belt territory may become provincial town once again-Navan for example could see rents fall as people find they can get a similar property in D15 for the same price they were paying and save a bucket load of time and petrol money on commuting.

I actually expect to see properties in rural areas abandoned over the coming years, especially if there's a site tax brought in. You could see houses being demolished completely and land being returned to agriculture to avoid paying site taxes on a worthless property. Meanwhile demand in urban areas may increase as people see the cities as the best chance for employment.

AlekSmart · 29-01-2012 1:30pm

murphaph wrote: »

I actually expect to see properties in rural areas abandoned over the coming years, especially if there's a site tax brought in. You could see houses being demolished completely and land being returned to agriculture to avoid paying site taxes on a worthless property. Meanwhile demand in urban areas may increase as people see the cities as the best chance for employment.

Good synopsis Murphaph,and one which a significant number of our population are apparently blind to.

The property related taxes will all contribute to the realization that a country landscape nicely lined with 5 bedroom "luxury" bungalows sitting on an acre of landscaped garden with electric gates is now,and always was unsustainable.

Currently the Financials surrounding the above category (and it's a substantial one) tend to be discussed only in terms of who'se fault it was..ie The Big Bad Banks for lending the money,or The poor misinformed,largely gullible youing people for seeking/taking it.

That however ignores the reality of literally thousands of residences throughout the country who'se continued habitation is unsustainable.....no local work...increasing private motoring costs......no available public transport to remote work.....no income...what do we do...?

In nthe midst of this sits the State Buddah,balefully distributing this bizzarre Accomodation "Allowance" which since it's well meaning inception has been a major contributor to shaping Social Attitudes of hundreds of thousands of people who,if anything,desperately needed the opposite form of stimulous.

However,the PRAA along with many other acompanying benefits within the DSP's myrad schemes has become the new "Opium of the Irish Masses",something which now has the Government and established Civil Service caught in the glare of it's headlight.

The Country can't afford to continue paying it,but equally the establishment simply cannot countenance reality and significantly reduce or abolish it for fear of the inevitable.

What price Egyptian,Libyan or Syrian scenario's developing on our streets...?

Laugh if you will,but don't fool yourself into thinking that the various sub-committee's which actually run the country have not considered or modelled just such scenario's.

As it stands all we can do is keep schtum and hope the monetary inflows continue to keep us in Beer n Crisps

woodoo · 29-01-2012 2:50pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

The property related taxes will all contribute to the realization that a country landscape nicely lined with 5 bedroom "luxury" bungalows sitting on an acre of landscaped garden with electric gates is now,and always was unsustainable.

Alot of those houses have been built over the last 10 years. They are largely lived in by people in their 30's and 40's. Among the age group that has bee hit hardest in this recession. I don't see the government hammer them some more.

If they want to change that going forward then planning offices need to be told no more one of houses in the countryside unless its for a farmer on his own land.

Punishing existing dwellers who broke no law is not fair or the answer.

AlekSmart · 30-01-2012 1:08pm

woodoo wrote: »

Alot of those houses have been built over the last 10 years. They are largely lived in by people in their 30's and 40's. Among the age group that has bee hit hardest in this recession. I don't see the government hammer them some more.

If they want to change that going forward then planning offices need to be told no more one of houses in the countryside unless its for a farmer on his own land.

Punishing existing dwellers who broke no law is not fair or the answer.

True indeed woodoo,or at least it would be in "normal" circumstances.

The very demographic you refer to,the 30+40 somethings,sit squarely in the sights of this Government and I'd suggest many more to come.

They are,for the most part,the Middle Class contributing class,registered for everything,fully tax-compliant and engaged with the civic process,such as it is.

This compliance makes them the easisest possible target for spineless Governments,ever keen not to provoke negative reaction from their burgeoning numbers of dependants.

The only reasonable answer,I feel,is for the State to get familar with the word "No" in terms of dispensing funds and services to individuals who have no contribution history or intent to accquire it.

The Planning Issue is,as you say,equally simple.

However,I would suggest that Planning Offices and Officers throughout the country were most keen to enforce the existing Planning Regulations,but in a frightening proportion of cases their professional judgements were continually overruled by traditional Irish getaroundery methods such as Section 4 motions or Planning Committee meetings in the wee small hours....nudge nudge wink wink,and the builder is on-site before the ink is dry.

Punishing,as you describe it,the existing target-group is neither fair nor an answer,but it is remarkably expedient,and Irish Politics is littered with the by-products of expediency

cast_iron · 31-01-2012 2:49pm

marathonic wrote: »

I'm in Donegal and the new limit is 90 (couple with one child). I can tell you now, without any shadow of a doubt, I will not be dropping this low. My plan is to offer the tenant a drop to 120 and, if this isn't good enough, he can move out.

Just on that, will the tenant not have no option but to move out?
They are not allowed to supplement the rent with their own funds as far as I'm aware, so either the rent must come down to the new limit, or the tenant has to find alternative accommodation at the lower rate.

marathonic · 09-02-2012 12:57pm

cast_iron wrote: »

Just on that, will the tenant not have no option but to move out?
They are not allowed to supplement the rent with their own funds as far as I'm aware, so either the rent must come down to the new limit, or the tenant has to find alternative accommodation at the lower rate.

I haven't been talking to my tenant yet about it and am not FULLY aware of the rules. Officially, it would appear that he'd have to move out as the rent isn't allowed to be supplemented. There is no accomodation available in my town at the reduced rates (and only 16 advertised rentals). There is accomodation at the reduced rates available in the next town about 20 miles away. Therefore, it would appear that tenants will have to move to different towns. This will be difficult for my tenant who works 2-3 days per week in the town.

Unofficially, I'm hearing stories about tenants subsidising the rent and marking the forms at the 'official' rate.

snubbleste · 09-02-2012 1:01pm

Minister for Social Protection states that taxpayer-funded rent supplement creates a floor in the private rental accomodation sector.

''It is essential that rents are allowed to stabilise from a natural balance of supply and demand, rather than as a result of a price floor funded by the taxpayer,'' the Minister added. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0209/daft-business.html

marathonic · 09-02-2012 4:11pm

snubbleste wrote: »

Minister for Social Protection states that taxpayer-funded rent supplement creates a floor in the private rental accomodation sector.

Okay - so why not abolish it altogether? Then all landlords would drop their rent to the 'new floor' of €0.

The floor on rented accomodation should always be a level where the rent is sufficient to offer landlords a reasonable yield based on interest rates and current house prices. With average 'low-end' houses in my area currently fetching €115,000 and the lowest mortgage rates at the moment being in the region of 3%, professional landlords should be looking for a return of at least 8% on the €115,000 so that there's sufficient income to cover other expenses as well as profit.

At this rate, house prices would need to drop to (90 * 52) / 8 * 100 = €58,500 before professional landlords come into the market - or almost a 50% drop from here.

Obviously, there's the 'cowboy' landlords who buy at low yields in the hope of getting capital appreciation but those days are gone.

I can see why the government would cut the supplement but to remove it altogether for rents above €90 per week in Donegal is rediculous. Those in towns like Letterkenny (where there is an oversupply of rental accomodation) should fare fine. However, those in other towns may be forced to re-locate (and probably will).

Regardless of peoples thoughts, landlords are providing a service for a fee. It should be considered a business to the landlord, not a get-rich-quick scheme. The government can, and should, control their expenses. However, they shouldn't intervene in a contract between a tenant and a landlord requesting the tenant to re-negotiate their rent.

It'll be interesting to see what happens but I personally don't see rents dropping unless there is an abundant oversupply in a particular town.

Sleepy · 09-02-2012 5:04pm

marathonic wrote: »

The floor on rented accomodation should always be a level where the rent is sufficient to offer landlords a reasonable yield based on interest rates and current house prices.

Why?

A floor on the price of any commodity lends itself to over-supply.

Rent, like the price of any good or service, should be subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Godge · 09-02-2012 5:31pm

marathonic wrote: »

The floor on rented accomodation should always be a level where the rent is sufficient to offer landlords a reasonable yield based on interest rates and current house prices.

Why? If that was the case, everyone would buy property to rent out as there would be no risk.

Buy-to-let is an investment, it is not even active enough to be called a business, and like all investments, there should be a risk. If the new rent supplement rules mean that people move from Carndonagh or Buncrana or whatever small town in Donegal you are talking about to places like Letterkenny where there is property available at the lower rent levels (and where they may have a better chance of a job, either there or in Derry), well then, that is good for the taxpayer. If the landlords of Buncrana and Carndonagh get screwed by that, who cares? It is an investment, you can lose money as well as gain money.

marathonic · 09-02-2012 6:49pm

I thought that post might have ruffled a few feathers. Well, if I'm to be honest, I'm not overly bothered about the rules. It's a slight annoyance as I'd obviously have kept on renting to my current tenant had they not changed. However, it's now a case of asking him to supplement the 90 euro or else serving him his 28 days notice.

It'll be interesting, to say the least, if there's another mini-budget this year as some are predicting. I don't see them hitting rent supplement again but, if they cut jobseekers benefit, which I hope they do, it'll limit tenants ability to even consider supplementing rent. This would have an indirect impact on landlords.

Oh the joys the next couple of years will bring - and, although another topic, David McWilliams is predicting Australia's recession to start this year.

AlekSmart · 09-02-2012 7:02pm

marathonic wrote: »

Okay - so why not abolish it altogether? Then all landlords would drop their rent to the 'new floor' of €0.

The floor on rented accomodation should always be a level where the rent is sufficient to offer landlords a reasonable yield based on interest rates and current house prices. With average 'low-end' houses in my area currently fetching €115,000 and the lowest mortgage rates at the moment being in the region of 3%, Professional landlords should be looking for a return of at least 8% on the €115,000 so that there's sufficient income to cover other expenses as well as profit.

At this rate, house prices would need to drop to (90 * 52) / 8 * 100 = €58,500 before professional landlords come into the market - or almost a 50% drop from here.

Obviously, there's the 'cowboy' landlords who buy at low yields in the hope of getting capital appreciation but those days are gone.

I can see why the government would cut the supplement but to remove it altogether for rents above €90 per week in Donegal is rediculous. Those in towns like Letterkenny (where there is an oversupply of rental accomodation) should fare fine. However, those in other towns may be forced to re-locate (and probably will).

Regardless of peoples thoughts, landlords are providing a service for a fee. It should be considered a business to the landlord, not a get-rich-quick scheme. The government can, and should, control their expenses. However, they shouldn't intervene in a contract between a tenant and a landlord requesting the tenant to re-negotiate their rent.

It'll be interesting to see what happens but I personally don't see rents dropping unless there is an abundant oversupply in a particular town.

This pretty much underlines where successive Irish Governments have collapsed and totally failed to appreciate the necessary reality,thus instead of fostering and assisting the "Proffessionalization" of Landlordism they have consistently aided and abetted the "Cowboy" landlord element in return for the considerable financial sympathy shown to the Political Parties in return...

lmimmfn · 10-02-2012 1:08am

Sleepy wrote: »

Why?

A floor on the price of any commodity lends itself to over-supply.

Rent, like the price of any good or service, should be subject to the laws of supply and demand.

exactly, but having a percentage of rental property socialised creates an artificial value of rental properties rather than leave them dwindle in value as per capitalism where they would find their floor( NAMA makes sure thats not going to happen ).

Its worse than that though, most people who get the rent supplement cant renegotiate with landlords due to the red tape involved, i.e. move out, find temp accommodation, move back in at the lower rate.

Those who receive rent supplement should receive a one off 50euro or whatever bonus if they reduce the cost of their rent and with no red tape and no moving out and back in again.

snubbleste · 02-03-2012 5:31pm

Minister for Social Protection states that rent supplement covers 40% of the rental market as of January 2012.

As the Department currently funds approximately 40% of the private rented sector it is essential that State support for rents are kept under review, reflect current market conditions and do not distort the market in a way that could increase rent prices for others, such as low paid workers and students. http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/01/31/00231.asp

Hotblack Desiato · 04-03-2012 2:01pm

snubbleste wrote: »

Minister for Social Protection states that rent supplement covers 40% of the rental market as of January 2012.

Shocking!

Godge · 04-03-2012 10:30pm

snubbleste wrote: »

Minister for Social Protection states that rent supplement covers 40% of the rental market as of January 2012.

And what percentage of the market is covered by student grants? That would be more landlords subsidised by the government.

murphaph · 04-03-2012 11:34pm

Of course these %age figures would be MUCH lower if more people rented in general in Ireland. Because the general desire is for home ownership at any cost, nobody pushes the government for better legislation for tenant/landlord relationships. In Germany pretty much anyone who is unemployed will be living in private rented accommodation too, as Germany doesn't have large stocks of public housing available to it, but because most people will be living in private rented accommodation anyway, the %age of rent payed by the state is probably much lower.

If Ireland wants to significantly reduce the amounts paid to private landlords, it has some choices:

1) Build or buy (or use and accept losses on NAMA owned) housing stock for those unable to afford to put a roof over their heads.

2) Remove itself from the business of providing any housing and hope for the best that people are not made homeless in great numbers.

3) Reduce the amounts paid in rent supplement drastically and hope that landlords are under enough pressure to accept whatever is offered.

Number 3 will work in some regions. It will work to a point in the areas of higher demand and then it will stop working and people in receipt of RS will have to leave and move to areas of lower demand.

Personally I'd like to see far better legislation brought in, to give long term security to tenants to make renting for your entire life a realistic prospect and also to enable quick evictions of tenants who fail to pay their rent and/or damage the landlord's property. Landlords shouldn't be able to jack up the rent at the drop of a hat, but tenants shouldn't be able to screw landlords over by withholding due rent either. It should be a mutually beneficial scenario.

I'd also like to see RS reduced and maximum room sizes and square footage sizes introduced. Working people should, in general, be able to afford better accommodation than those in receipt of RS, anything else seems grossly unfair to me. No property for rent should fall below certain minimum standards, but these standards need not be "gold plated". The property should be clean, dry and capable of being heated reasonably efficiently, with running water and electricity supply and inside toilet.

You can't really have a nation of homeowners and at the same time a competitive rental sector, because if 90% of people own their own homes, then there will be a far smaller supply of rented property to begin with and this will always result in tenants paying somewhat of a premium IMO. The best way to remedy this is to legislate to make renting long term/forever a realistic option in Ireland, as it is here.

Jesus Shaves · 04-03-2012 11:38pm

ninja900 wrote: »

Shocking!

Oh Jaysus it's terrible isn't it, feckin terrible

antoobrien · 05-03-2012 10:24am

murphaph wrote: »

Of course these %age figures would be MUCH lower if more people rented in general in Ireland. Because the general desire is for home ownership at any cost, nobody pushes the government for better legislation for tenant/landlord relationships.

Interesting logic, care to explain it or is the second part of the argument the only reason you think that way?

murphaph · 05-03-2012 6:33pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Interesting logic, care to explain it or is the second part of the argument the only reason you think that way?

I think it's pretty self evident: few people in Ireland (not in receipt of RS) see renting from a private landlord as anymore than a stop gap. Most fully anticipate buying a property so we don't have any citizens movement towards better legislation. No association of renters etc. in each county, as would be common on the continent.

daltonmd · 05-03-2012 7:08pm

murphaph wrote: »

I think it's pretty self evident: few people in Ireland (not in receipt of RS) see renting from a private landlord as anymore than a stop gap. Most fully anticipate buying a property so we don't have any citizens movement towards better legislation. No association of renters etc. in each county, as would be common on the continent.

I don't fully agree - I see your logic as long as you can see that the "stop gap" has lengthened considerably, but people, for the most part, don't really have that choice anymore.

A lot of renters are happy renting and *may* buy in the future if it suits them.
A lot of renters are not happy renting but cannot buy because of the finances involved.
A lot of renters now actually do own their own homes and are tenants/landlords.

Most can fully anticipate what they want, but if they can't get finance and are looking at reduced disposable income, rising taxes, rising indirect taxes, stealth taxes and higher costs of borrowing for the next few years then the rental market will be forced to change.

Hotblack Desiato · 05-03-2012 9:13pm

murphaph wrote: »

Of course these %age figures would be MUCH lower if more people rented in general in Ireland.

Yes, and lower still if all tenancies were registered like they're supposed to be.
Presumably the 40% figure is based only on registered tenancies.

snubbleste · 06-03-2012 12:58pm

ninja900 wrote: »

Yes, and lower still if all tenancies were registered like they're supposed to be.
Presumably the 40% figure is based only on registered tenancies.

Why would you presume that?
There are plenty of rent supplement tenants renting a room living with the owner of the house. Those are not registered tenancies.

djpbarry · 06-03-2012 12:58pm

murphaph wrote: »

The property should be clean, dry and capable of being heated reasonably efficiently, with running water and electricity supply and inside toilet.

Legislation shouldn't really be necessary to ensure the above though. Surely it should be common sense that a tenant should not be handing over their cash for a property that doesn't have central heating, for example? It seemed to me (and I accept that this is purely anecdotal) that a large number of tenants in Ireland don't even have a proper lease - that's just asking for trouble.

daltonmd wrote: »

Most can fully anticipate what they want, but if they can't get finance and are looking at reduced disposable income, rising taxes, rising indirect taxes, stealth taxes and higher costs of borrowing for the next few years then the rental market will be forced to change.

But the point is that the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland don't want to rent long-term. Some may have been forced into that situation, but the only viable long-term plan in the minds of many is owning property.

daltonmd · 06-03-2012 1:05pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Legislation shouldn't really be necessary to ensure the above though. Surely it should be common sense that a tenant should not be handing over their cash for a property that doesn't have central heating, for example? It seemed to me (and I accept that this is purely anecdotal) that a large number of tenants in Ireland don't even have a proper lease - that's just asking for trouble.
But the point is that the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland don't want to rent long-term. Some may have been forced into that situation, but the only viable long-term plan in the minds of many is owning property.

I see your point, but the reality is that while most people don't want to rent long term, for the moment they have no choice. It is a long term plan for many, my self included, but as long as I can't get a mortgage or fear for my income/job then I won't be buying.

People looking to enter the market now will not make the mistakes that they have seen their family/friends make.

They may not like renting - but it will always be the more preferable option to Negative Equity.

Tragedy · 06-03-2012 1:23pm

snubbleste wrote: »

Why would you presume that?
There are plenty of rent supplement tenants renting a room living with the owner of the house. Those are not registered tenancies.

That's his point. They're comparing total amount of people being claiming rent supplement against total amount of registered tenancies. As many people claiming RS won't be registered tenants and as many other renters won't be registered tenants, the %age figure given for how much of the market RS controls will be vastly overstated. This is something no-one seems interested in picking up on, despite e-mailing Joan Burton, Ronan Lyons etc.

AlekSmart · 06-03-2012 1:38pm

daltonmd wrote: »

I see your point, but the reality is that while most people don't want to rent long term, for the moment they have no choice. It is a long term plan for many, my self included, but as long as I can't get a mortgage or fear for my income/job then I won't be buying.

People looking to enter the market now will not make the mistakes that they have seen their family/friends make.

They may not like renting - but it will always be the more preferable option to Negative Equity.

The main reason for this negative perception of Rental is the continued refusal of the State to give due recognition to it's benefits.

It would appear that Irish Government policy remains firmly rooted in getting the Property Ladder back up against the wall from which it has fallen.

Whilst owning and enjoying one's own property has many benefits,it also brings with it responsibilities,expense and inflexibility...or at least it does everywhere else except Ireland,where it's promoted as a constitutionally enshrined entitlement.

If the Irish State even moved slightly towards providing effective regulation and monitoring of Rental,particularly of Long-Term rental,it would free up a large amount of currently frozen resources,both monetary and phsychological.

It does'nt have to be revolutionary or threaten the security of the State and it's institutions,but the constant dumbing down of the Rental option needs to stop.

However it seems the Developers,Financial Institutions and associated Boomtime Rats remain the sleeping dogs which Government is unwilling to put outside the door.

daltonmd · 06-03-2012 1:48pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

The main reason for this negative perception of Rental is the continued refusal of the State to give due recognition to it's benefits.

It would appear that Irish Government policy remains firmly rooted in getting the Property Ladder back up against the wall from which it has fallen.

Whilst owning and enjoying one's own property has many benefits,it also brings with it responsibilities,expense and inflexibility...or at least it does everywhere else except Ireland,where it's promoted as a constitutionally enshrined entitlement.

If the Irish State even moved slightly towards providing effective regulation and monitoring of Rental,particularly of Long-Term rental,it would free up a large amount of currently frozen resources,both monetary and phsychological.

It does'nt have to be revolutionary or threaten the security of the State and it's institutions,but the constant dumbing down of the Rental option needs to stop.

However it seems the Developers,Financial Institutions and associated Boomtime Rats remain the sleeping dogs which Government is unwilling to put outside the door.

Couldn't agree more - one of the fears that I have is renting into my old age - I'm terrified that if I continue renting I'll be kicked out and 70 looking for a deposit back from a Landlord lol.
Seriously though - as long as rental means lack of security and the deposit issue then Irish people won't want to rent long term.

djpbarry · 06-03-2012 2:40pm

daltonmd wrote: »

I see your point, but the reality is that while most people don't want to rent long term...

That's the nub of the issue - why is renting seen by the Irish as being so much worse than ownership?

daltonmd wrote: »

Couldn't agree more - one of the fears that I have is renting into my old age - I'm terrified that if I continue renting I'll be kicked out and 70 looking for a deposit back from a Landlord lol.

But your landlord can't just kick you out for no good reason - you have rights! This isn't the 1800's.

daltonmd · 06-03-2012 2:46pm

djpbarry wrote: »

That's the nub of the issue - why is renting seen by the Irish as being so much worse than ownership?
But your landlord can't just kick you out for no good reason - you have rights! This isn't the 1800's.

He might wish to sell, he might be forced by the bank to sell, he might have to move back into the home? He might increase my rent to an unaffordable amount?

Edit - right on cue http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=43653.

Dellony25 · 07-03-2012 4:37pm

What really bugs me is the people who are in Receipt of rent supplement and then turn down a perfectly good house from their local council because they dont want to live in a council house yet hav no problem in getting the state to pay their rent!! The RS should be scrapped altogether!!

Nothingbetter2d · 07-03-2012 4:43pm

the government should rent out all the nama properties and use that as a means to bring down rent rates in ireland.

Nothingbetter2d · 07-03-2012 4:45pm

Dellony25 wrote: »

What really bugs me is the people who are in Receipt of rent supplement and then turn down a perfectly good house from their local council because they dont want to live in a council house yet hav no problem in getting the state to pay their rent!! The RS should be scrapped altogether!!

if the offer me a house i'd take it.... it would be a damn site better than the shoe box im renting now

djpbarry · 07-03-2012 5:16pm

daltonmd wrote: »

He might wish to sell, he might be forced by the bank to sell, he might have to move back into the home? He might increase my rent to an unaffordable amount?

Ignoring for a moment that each of those scenarios is relatively unlikely in the case of any one landlord, you still have rights - you can't just be turfed out of rented accommodation.

daltonmd · 07-03-2012 5:46pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ignoring for a moment that each of those scenarios is relatively unlikely in the case of any one landlord, you still have rights - you can't just be turfed out of rented accommodation.

I may have rights - but I don't have security.

djpbarry · 07-03-2012 6:05pm

daltonmd wrote: »

I may have rights - but I don't have security.

Well that depends on how one defines security. A landlord needs a very good reason to terminate a tenancy and they also need to give plenty of notice. As for being forced to sell, well that's very unlikely - why would a bank force someone to sell a property that's generating rental income? And as for raising the rent, yeah, that can happen, but mortgage payments can increase too!

daltonmd · 07-03-2012 6:13pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that depends on how one defines security. A landlord needs a very good reason to terminate a tenancy and they also need to give plenty of notice. As for being forced to sell, well that's very unlikely - why would a bank force someone to sell a property that's generating rental income? And as for raising the rent, yeah, that can happen, but mortgage payments can increase too!

Sorry - I don't agree. It's shaky everywhere at the moment - no long term security for tenants. A lot of landlords are to the pin of their collars.

djpbarry · 07-03-2012 6:32pm

daltonmd wrote: »

Sorry - I don't agree. It's shaky everywhere at the moment - no long term security for tenants.

Ah, so we're referring exclusively to the present climate? Ok, how do home-owners, who are currently losing money on their properties hand over fist (and whose mortgage payments are likely to increase substantially in the event of an economic recovery), have more "security" than renters in the present climate?

daltonmd wrote: »

A lot of landlords are to the pin of their collars.

I'm not familiar with that expression?

daltonmd · 15-03-2012 2:40pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, so we're referring exclusively to the present climate? Ok, how do home-owners, who are currently losing money on their properties hand over fist (and whose mortgage payments are likely to increase substantially in the event of an economic recovery), have more "security" than renters in the present climate?
I'm not familiar with that expression?

Well of course we are referring to the present climate, it's their property in the first instance so any change will be instigated by them or dictated by their banks - but - they are privvy to them, unlike tenants.

To the pin of ones collar - unable to take anymore increases in BTL charges and/or unable to take anymore increases in taxes or reductions in personal income.

Edit to add - I refer to Patrick Holohans recent statement about BTL properites - he believes that banks should take a more active role in these issues - meaning, protect home ownership but BTL up in the air.

Tragedy · 25-03-2013 6:59pm

I hope people don't mind me bumping this thread as the post is relevant.

Firstly, the 2011 census figures were published in 2012. This revealed that on census day, 428,040 people described themselves as living in rented accommodation. Remember, this is only for people who A) Filled out the census form and

Filled it out correctly, so the real number is undoubtedly higher. Perhaps this will once and for all stop the nonsense that "Rent Supplement controls 50% of the rental market" (where the truer figure is likely to be 15-20%).

Secondly, over a year since the first cuts in Rent Supplement started to take effect and... From Q4 2011 to Q4 2012, rental prices in Dublin increased by between 3.8% and 6.4%. Rental prices across the country in general decreased by a very small amount - and if one looks at the trend of rental price falls over the past few years, one can see that the trend is continuing with no noticeable distortionary effect from the RS cuts. (http://www.daft.ie/report/Daft-Rental-Report-Q4-2012.pdf is very informative, as is http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/prices/2012/rppi_dec2012.pdf for correlating house price falls with rental price falls).

So, rent supplement wasn't setting an artificial price floor and the cut seems to have had no tangible effect on prices.

(PS: If mods are irrationally anti bumping, can you split this off into a new thread?)

Godge · 25-03-2013 8:20pm

Tragedy wrote: »

I hope people don't mind me bumping this thread as the post is relevant.

Firstly, the 2011 census figures were published in 2012. This revealed that on census day, 428,040 people described themselves as living in rented accommodation. Remember, this is only for people who A) Filled out the census form and Filled it out correctly, so the real number is undoubtedly higher. Perhaps this will once and for all stop the nonsense that "Rent Supplement controls 50% of the rental market" (where the truer figure is likely to be 15-20%).?)

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/10/13/00015.asp

According to Joan Burton, the number of people claiming the allowance was 95,700 as of October 2011.

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

According to the Census there were 2.7 people per household. Multiplying 95,700 by 2.7 gives 258,390, approximately 60% meaning that rent supplement is now covering 60% of the rental market.

Tragedy wrote: »

Secondly, over a year since the first cuts in Rent Supplement started to take effect and... From Q4 2011 to Q4 2012, rental prices in Dublin increased by between 3.8% and 6.4%. Rental prices across the country in general decreased by a very small amount - and if one looks at the trend of rental price falls over the past few years, one can see that the trend is continuing with no noticeable distortionary effect from the RS cuts. (http://www.daft.ie/report/Daft-Rental-Report-Q4-2012.pdf is very informative, as is http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/prices/2012/rppi_dec2012.pdf for correlating house price falls with rental price falls).

So, rent supplement wasn't setting an artificial price floor and the cut seems to have had no tangible effect on prices.

(PS: If mods are irrationally anti bumping, can you split this off into a new thread?)

have you taken into account the effects of the new rules on bedsits. If you eliminate the cheapest form of accommodation, the average rent will rise regardless of the general direction of rental prices. I am surprised therefore that the increase is so low.

Tragedy · 25-03-2013 9:26pm

Godge wrote: »

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/10/13/00015.asp

According to Joan Burton, the number of people claiming the allowance was 95,700 as of October 2011.

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

Sorry, I typo'ed. According to the census: Total rented dwellings (Number) 449,352 (of which 305,377 are private rented households with the rest being rented from a 'Voluntary Body' or 'Local Authority', both of which are eligible for RS payments). So a maximum of 95,700 households out of a minimum of 449,352 households are funded by RS. That sets the theoretical maximum at 21% of the market being controlled by RS, with the very real likelihood that it is significantly less (e.g. there are 110,000 undergraduate students , a large proportion of which will be living in campus accomodation and rented accomodation and not filling in census forms)

One can see here that despite the amount of RS recipients dropping by only 6,800 (or 7%), the amount of the rental market funded by the RS scheme has magically dropped by 10%(40% of market to 30%). Awesome work by the DSP, as per usual.

have you taken into account the effects of the new rules on bedsits. If you eliminate the cheapest form of accommodation, the average rent will rise regardless of the general direction of rental prices. I am surprised therefore that the increase is so low.

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense for a very many reasons.
#1 There weren't a large amount of bedsits, and they were localised in a few specific areas. All areas of Dublin (even those in the suburbs that have very few if any apartments) saw large growth in rents.
#2 Very few(anyone?) chose to live in a bedsit if they could afford better.
#3 Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2008 statutory instrument had a 4 year grace period that only ended in January of this year, with enforcement only beginning in Spring 2013. How could you possibly believe that that drove rental price increases throughout the whole of 2012?
#4

Villa05 · 26-03-2013 7:44am

Tragedy wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense for a very many reasons.
#1 There weren't a large amount of bedsits, and they were localised in a few specific areas. All areas of Dublin (even those in the suburbs that have very few if any apartments) saw large growth in rents.
#2 Very few(anyone?) chose to live in a bedsit if they could afford better.
#3 Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2008 statutory instrument had a 4 year grace period that only ended in January of this year, with enforcement only beginning in Spring 2013. How could you possibly believe that that drove rental price increases throughout the whole of 2012?

1. Would it be enough to cause a 3% rise in rents
2. Given we have the mother of all recessions. Define affordable in Dublin
2. A grace period is a period to rectify the issue, not a sit on your hands period, although given Ireland's history I'm open to correction

djpbarry · 26-03-2013 11:48am

Villa05 wrote: »

Given we have the mother of all recessions.

Ireland is not in recession and has not been for some time.

Villa05 · 26-03-2013 6:17pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ireland is not in recession and has not been for some time.

Technically we are back in recession

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/ireland-back-in-recession-as-new-figures-confirm-two-quarters-of-gdp-contraction/

djpbarry · 26-03-2013 7:22pm

Villa05 wrote: »

Technically we are back in recession

Ok, the country has just about slipped back into recession for the first time since 2009, but (a) GDP is still on a general upward trend and (b) it's a long way from the "mother of all recessions", as you described it.

MMAGirl · 27-03-2013 10:35am

the only effect that cutting rent allowance has had is that people who cant afford a standard of living must now move somewhere, where they can. freeing up the better properties for those who can afford them.

AlekSmart · 27-03-2013 12:44pm

MMAGirl wrote: »

the only effect that cutting rent allowance has had is that people who cant afford a standard of living must now move somewhere, where they can. freeing up the better properties for those who can afford them.

Or....the same people have to consider diverting income from...erm....other sources into paying the difference between RA and the rent being sought ?

By this I mean reducing the spend on Cigarettes,Tobacco,Mobile Phone credit,alcohol and substance purchases,clothing and jewellery to name but a few.

I am also aware personally of upfront RA recipient/s who can still manage to run a car (fully Taxed and NCT'd too !),which I fully admit is not to be taken as indicative of ALL such recipients,but still demonstrates that austerity is an elastic term to many.

not yet · 27-03-2013 3:52pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Or....the same people have to consider diverting income from...erm....other sources into paying the difference between RA and the rent being sought ?

By this I mean reducing the spend on Cigarettes,Tobacco,Mobile Phone credit,alcohol and substance purchases,clothing and jewellery to name but a few.

I am also aware personally of upfront RA recipient/s who can still manage to run a car (fully Taxed and NCT'd too !),which I fully admit is not to be taken as indicative of ALL such recipients,but still demonstrates that austerity is an elastic term to many.

But think of the childer....

I am sick to death of listening to the sh1te about bread lines and the like.the real poor in this country are people working on 25-40k simple as.

Government to cut rent supplement

Comments