Rent prices on the way up?

bryaner

Jomcc wrote: »

Heard that on radio this morning and thought........oh we're back to our old tricks again. Try make people think that they must rent/buy now quickly before nothing is available at the lower price.
Absolute bull in my opinion.........that's what got us into this mess in the first place.
People are just going to have to think for themselves before being swayed by "propoganda" being issued by groups with a vested interested.

How can you trick someone into renting?? Whatever about tricking people

into thinking houses are at their lowest, but if your going to rent your going

to rent..

bryaner

connundrum wrote: »

Nope, he was so unhappy with my offer of €950pm that he rejected it politely, and watched as it sat unoccupied for 3 months (Dec to present day).

He really showed me.

Cant understand landlords that wont take 2/3s or 3/4s of what their looking

for as opposed to nothing it's either greed or stupidity or likely both.

tedstriker

This is a bit of a bull**** story. There was a slight increase in January on the daft.ie index and the rest is spin. The reality is still very, very clear:
http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/property/29/Daft.ie-Rental-Price-Index.html

SkepticOne

Very good graph. Settles the issue for me.

The_Conductor

My take on this is rents have settled around the reduced level of rent allowance once again. Some properties in desireable locations are possibly being let at slightly higher amounts (particularly as its become common practice to subsidise the rent under the table, as it were), whereas there are vast numbers of properties in less desireable areas that as they are vacant, are simply not affecting the statistics whatsoever.

What I took more than anything else from the DAFT info- is that the lengths of tenancies are gone way down- the eras of 2 year average tenancies- are now more 6-8 months. People do not want to be tied into longer contracts- and indeed may be willing to pay slightly over the odds to get shorter leases........?

Goesague

Victor wrote: »

2001-2002 was when the government removed mortgage interest relief for investors.

How wrong can anyone be? Mortgage relief was abolished for investors who bought after 1998 but allowed for previous purchases. It was restore to all in 2002. In 2008 it was reduced to 75% for all investors. What planet do you live on?

The_Conductor

Goesague wrote: »

How wrong can anyone be? Mortgage relief was abolished for investors who bought after 1998 but allowed for previous purchases. It was restore to all in 2002. In 2008 it was reduced to 75% for all investors. What planet do you live on?

The main rule I use when moderating in here- is to remind people that we are all civilised- and should be treated as such. If you disagree with what someone else posts- you refute the post, without getting personal. Consider this a warning- as you're a new poster here. In future- if you pick on another poster (and keep in mind Victor is also a moderator and a CMOD here)- you will have a holiday from posting here, possibly extending to a outright ban.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

Guell72

Goesague wrote: »

How wrong can anyone be? Mortgage relief was abolished for investors who bought after 1998 but allowed for previous purchases. It was restore to all in 2002. In 2008 it was reduced to 75% for all investors. What planet do you live on?

I think thats going to do more than anything else to prevent any new investors coming into the market. Any investors already in will just stay, until they have enough and sell up. So if you are looking to buy, its a good thing. The stock of rental properties will eventually start to dwindle though.

Victor

Goesague, I believe I am right, maybe I'm wrong. Do you have the exact details?

smccarrick wrote: »

and keep in mind Victor is also a moderator and a CMOD here

I is not CMod!

Jo King

Look at my post above. Here are links to the Revenue website. Look at the wording of Section 18.

"Mortgage relief for rental properties is available through the tax system and you should contact your local tax office."

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/tax-relief-source-mortgage-interest-relief.html#section18

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it70.html#section4

Certain restrictions were introduced on the deductibility of interest on borrowed money used on or after 23/4/1998, in the construction, purchase, or repair of rented residential premises in the State, or 7/5/1998 in the case of foreign residential premises. However, the relief for interest on borrowed money was restored for such interest accruing on or after 1 January 2002. There were some transitional arrangements in place in the interim period.

Relief is disallowed as respects interest accruing on or after 6 February 2003 where the let premises was purchased from the spouse of the person chargeable in respect of the rental income. However, the disallowance of interest relief does not apply in the case of legally separated or divorced persons.

Where a loan has been used to purchase, improve or repair a rented residential property and the interest on the loan accrues on or after 7 April 2009 (Budget Day), only 75% of the interest on the loan can be deducted as a rental expense instead of the normal 100%. For the purposes of the restriction, the interest is treated as accruing on a daily basis. The date the loan is taken out is not relevant.

The restriction does not apply to loans taken out to finance non-residential property and the full amount of interest continues to be deductible in such cases. In the case of mixed residential and non-residential properties interest should be apportioned on a just and reasonable basis before the restriction is applied to the residential part of the interest.

Goesague

Victor wrote: »

Goesague, I believe I am right, maybe I'm wrong. Do you have the exact details?I is not CMod!

You believe????. You contradicted another poster with no "exact details" of you own, but when contyroverted still persist in looking for exact details. What do you want? Finance Act dates and section numbers?

D3PO

Goesague wrote: »

You believe????. You contradicted another poster with no "exact details" of you own, but when contyroverted still persist in looking for exact details. What do you want? Finance Act dates and section numbers?

seriously you have already been warned. Post by all means and if you believe something is wrong then comment on it. One of the great things here is education people learn things they dont already know.

To do so its easier to read up on something, now believe it or not you can find lots of details without looking into legislation on places like the citizens information website etc. Victor has asked a simple question rather than coming on as a new user and trying to throw some weight around how about you actually properly engage with people ?

Carrick & Victor are good Mod's but I can tell you know if you continue the way you are you will probably end up with a temporary ban. Just some friendly advice.

Goesague

D3PO wrote: »

Victor has asked a simple question rather than coming on as a new user and trying to throw some weight around how about you actually properly engage with people ?


.

Victor did not ask a simple question. He made a statement which was grossly wrong. He was controverted. He then wants me to do something that he failed to do i.e. basic research.
It is not a question of him simply being too lazy to do his own research and that he asked a simple question. You should get your facts straight before attacking me under the guise of "friendly advice".

eskdaleproperty

It could get worse as house prices rise and accidental landlords find that they can now sell their property. Until housebuilding increases in the UK there will always be pressure on the rental market. Some areas eg university towns will be worse than others

The_Conductor

eskdaleproperty wrote: »

It could get worse as house prices rise and accidental landlords find that they can now sell their property. Until housebuilding increases in the UK there will always be pressure on the rental market. Some areas eg university towns will be worse than others

House prices are not rising though- and with the impending interest rate rises, and NAMA having totally put the brakes on any mortgage lending- they are not going to- possibly for years. Why does house building in the UK have any impact on the Irish rental market? Over 1/4 of our entire housing stock- is vacant- and we are back in a position of net outward migration again- which is only going to accerbate this situation. Some of the university/IT towns are even worse off than anywhere else- what you're saying does not stack up- is not relevant.

shoegirl

I do not agree that the Bacon report's responses were the sole reason for a rental hike in the latter years of the 90s. This entirely ignores several other societal factors that occured during those years such as:

• large pay increases (esp under benchmarking) that facilitated affordability of higher rents
• low regulation and zero enforcement, encouraging lots of bad practices that disadvantaged tenants (ranging from stuff like poor standards to witholding deposits and illegal evictions). AFAIK very few inspections took place before about 2002 or 2002, and even now a huge number of counties do almost none. PRTB only started in 04 and prior to that it was difficult for a low income tenant (which means most tenants) to tackle these effectively.
• massive hikes in house prices that priced a large chunk of low to middle income earners out of the Dublin market by 97 - this was effectively countrywide by 2003 - people still needed places to live so there was huge renting growing in those years
• massive failures to rovide social housing that dumped significant numbers of welfare recipients into perpetual private renting
• the end of entry to some of the major tax incentive schemes such as Section 23
• a change from net emmigration to net, and growing inward migration, including emmigrant returns
• possible gut reactions by some "new landlords" to the realities of being a landlord - I know a lot of people who got a nasty shock after investing thinking they were onto a sure thing to make a quick buck, and then had to deal with realities such as managing tenants, cash flow, carrying repairs, maintaining properties, handling complaints etc.

The explanation given to me is simplistic and in the scenario that was the case at the time that there was poor records regarding the actual figures regarding second home ownership (something which has only really been revealed by the underestimate of the second home tax in 2009), I think its safe to argue that the tax relief changes was not the only reason why rents soared from 1997 to 2002.

As for the rent subsidy arguement - I think the point made that market rents are unlikely to fall beneath rent allowance levels are true - to a point!
They will only settle at RA level IF there is still a significant body of RA tenants who are effectively priced out or otherwise excluded from the market rental structure. The comments about RA tenants being "in competition" with median wage earners is very true and definitely significant. Most landlords who previously completely refused RA tenants are now considering them (they often don't really have a choice). The main risk they take is that if the government continues to reduce the maximum payments either they have to ask the tenants to pay them under the counter (which they do, and for which there is no real effective prevention measure as its essentially a black market payment in cash) or reduce rents. I suspect the problem will gradually emerge over time as tenants who have had both RA levels cut AND welfare levels cut will aveo wait until the end of their leases before they can demand either a reduction or look for somewhere new. This may delay the full impact of these cuts on that end of the sector.

The real impact I suspect is going to come if eastern European migrants continue to go home as these make up a large proportion of tenants at the lower rent levels.
Its also worth noting that the Dublin situation is often quite different from rural towns and the other main cities, who all have significant student populaces which are now far more likely to live in on-campus or Section 50 than the "pure" private sector.