People need to realise that renting a property is a business decision like any other

Darlughda

This thread title is a quote from McCarrick, one of the mods on this forum.

I have problems with this view. Particularly when it comes to RA tenants.

A property is not some kind of commodity like gold or jewellery.

A property depends on living, breathing humans who need a home.

Peoples' welfare are at stake here, if a landlord acts purely for the profit of money, at disregard to the tenant and landlords stand to lose out on potentially excellent longterm tenants if they continue with this ridiculous policy of discriminating against RA tenants.

Now, we all have stories of bad landlords, and bad tenants, both RA and non RA, but is it possible to find some kind of median area where good landlords can be matched up with good tenants?

It would be great if such a database existed!

Nonetheless, the idea of being a landlord being primarily a business decision is one that makes me :eek:.
This suggests a greedy individual who gives not a rat's ass about an individual only the bottom line on the return of their investments.

How in this day and age the practice of landlords being able to consider their properties in the 19th century practice as profit making enterprises is allowed to continue, I don't know-especially considering the suffering endured by most of our ancestors in this country under such norms.

the_syco

Darlughda wrote: »

How in this day and age the practice of landlords being able to consider their properties in the 19th century practice as profit making enterprises is allowed to continue

So should it be
A) a profit making enterprise
a loss making enterprise
C) a non-profit enterprise

"A" will mean he continues to be a landlord, and fix any problems that arise.
"B" will mean that he has to pay from his own pocket, and ignore the tenant should something break
"C" will not exist. No-one rents a house without hoping it generates income.

So, what exactly do you think that renting a house should be? Your post is illogical, and smells of communism :pac:

jimmycrackcorm

What other reason do people rent properties unless it is to make a profit?

Darlughda

Your post is illogical, and smells of communism :pac:

The McCarthy administration called, syco hun, they want you back to the 1950's.

While you are there, do tell that nice Mr. Miller that the Salem play will be the one he is really remembered for.

Anyway, I am not playing your multiple choice game. You can read. Therefore you can see what I am saying.:pac:

Darlughda

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What other reason do people rent properties unless it is to make a profit?

To have a place to live in. A shelter, home. A basic fundamental need and right. People do not rent to seek a profit.

silja

Darlughda wrote: »

To have a place to live in. A shelter, home. A basic fundamental need and right. People do not rent to seek a profit.

The landlord doesn't live there... or are you proposing that there should be no landlords, and everyone either lives at home or owns their own house?

Darlughda

silja wrote: »

The landlord doesn't live there... or are you proposing that there should be no landlords, and everyone either lives at home or owns their own house?

Obviously not.

athtrasna

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What other reason do people rent properties unless it is to make a profit?

How about to keep their property in the hope of one day being able to move back into it themselves, while in the meantime having to move back in with their parents/houseshare/bedsit. Or in the hope of being able to sell without massive negative equity in the future?

The landlords of the dodgy pre'63 conversions and a lot of the older accommodation tend to be people who are in it purely for the money. Landlords of newer accommodation tend to be people who got caught in the property bubble and paid way too much for average/small properties, and are left with properties they can't afford to live in, or can't fit in (eg owners of 1 bed apartments who are now married with kids).

People on RA are not the only people hurting. All the advice to young people in the last decade was to buy, get your foot on the property ladder and trade up. I myself got advice from a major financial institution in 2000 not to buy til 2004 as the market will have calmed down and there will be bargains. Glad I didn't take that advice!

Balmed Out

Not the primary reason?????? What other reason?

Would you take out and struggle with a mortgage so as to provide those (uptill said mortgage) needier then you with rent free accomodation?


As with everything a landlord should make sure the product is fit for purpose and not a slum but please leave the idealistic left wing nonsense back in primary school where it belongs.

Zulu

Perhaps, for those, who believe that anyone who owns a property is landed gentry.

The reality of the matter is that landlords have mortgages to pay.

MagicMarker

Unless the landlord is operating a homeless shelter, why else would they rent a property?

trad

A bit like farmers.

Faolchu

Darlughda wrote: »

How in this day and age the practice of landlords being able to consider their properties in the 19th century practice as profit making enterprises is allowed to continue, .

in my view there are three catagories of landlord:
A) the professional one i.e has multiple properties in a portfolio that they rent out. it is a business and they like all business people are in it for one reason. profit.

b) the chancer, someone that had a little extra cash or between them and their partner had two homes, live in one and decided to rent the other for surplus income or in the hope they could sell it on later for a profit. either way the motivation is profit

C) the desperate i.e. someone that cant afford their mortgage so have moved home and rent out the property they lived in in an effort to pay their debt. in this case they are in the business for one reason only. debt

in both cases the primary goal is to maximase the money coming in to increasde profit or reduce debt. neither catagory is in it out of some sense of charity, if they were they wouldnt charge rent, they'd leave the doors open and let anyone stay there that needed a roof over their head.

now in all the above groups you have good and bad, but then you have good and bad car sales men, doctors, street sweepers, taxi driver etc.

to somewhat back up McCarricks point, i think in the past it was a business decision, today though for some its the only option they have facing mounting debt etc. they move back home, rent the place out to try pay the mortgage and hoepe in a year or two to move back in. But I think these people need to realise it is a business and need to consider how they act to ensure they get a return from their investment. ie take care of maintenance issues, issue reciepts for rent, dont spend the security deposit as if it was your money, dont hold on to the security deposit for silly reasons, register with the PRTB and pay income tax etc

to sum up. OP if your looking at it from the POV of a tenant then there is a certain logic to what you say. yes some landlords are potentially cutting themselves off from a decent no trouble tenant by excluding RA tenants. however you may find that these particular landlords may be desperate and havent registered for tax on the rental income, they may also not have informed their mortgage lender to inform them it is no longer the principle residence but a rented property etc.
However as the topic is from the POV of the landlord IMO then i can only conclude that yourpoint is out there like pluto. it makes no logical sense to me and i'm neither a landlord or a tenant

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...
Nonetheless, the idea of being a landlord being primarily a business decision is one that makes me :eek:. ...

Is there any other reason to be a landlord?

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...Peoples' welfare are at stake here, if a landlord acts purely for the profit of money, at disregard to the tenant and landlords stand to lose out on potentially excellent longterm tenants if they continue with this ridiculous policy of discriminating against RA tenants....

Peoples welfare is the job of the state not the LL.

The state set up the RA and PRTB and both are seriously flawed for the LL. Thats where the problem lies, not with the Landlord. The state is expecting the LL to loan the state and the tenant money while the state gets up to speed. Paying in arrears, immediately puts the LL at a loss.

There is no security with a RA tenant. If they don't pay their rent, the state doesn't cover the LL loses. Indeed, there's nothing to stop a tenant who is kicked off RA, to get it again in another region. There is no mechanism to stop this AFAIK.

A LL should insisted on a deposit of 2 months rent to cover payment one month in arrears, and if there's any delay in payment from the state, the tenant must pay this themselves. If there's any delay in paying the rent, the LL should start official procedure (letters) immediately. Because the process is ridiculously long.

You don't seem to have any awareness of any of these issues. You seem to be stuck in ancient history.

There's also an assumption here that the LL has excess money to enable them to provide this "loan" or can afford to cover these losses. The truth is many simply don''t and are probably even deeper in debt/trouble than the tenant. For sure there are good and bad LL's just as there are good and bad Tenants.

Diarmuid

Darlughda wrote: »

Nonetheless, the idea of being a landlord being primarily a business decision is one that makes me :eek:.
This suggests a greedy individual who gives not a rat's ass about an individual only the bottom line on the return of their investments.

That's a logical fallacy.

hardCopy

This thread makes my brain hurt.

Why would any sane individual go through all the hassle of buying a property, furnishing it, advertising it, showing it, signing contracts and collecting rent, maintaining it and cleaning it if not to make a profit?

For the craic?

Darlughda

Well, you all seem determined to deliberately misunderstand me. Instead of throwing silly insults at me why not read my post properly.

My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to make a profit from renting out property, but a landlord is dealing with people here. Therefore, an interest in housing for a start, a knowledge of the law, being good at dealing with people are other reasons why a landlord could be interested in renting out a property.

A property should be decent, and furnished appropriately-(not with the current vogue for decrepit nursing home chic).
'Fit for purpose'- what about well maintained, and somewhere the landlord would live themselves?

If a landlord wants a deposit and months rent in advance, fine as long as that landlord ensures the tenant has their deposit back in time for them to secure their next accomodation.

Nobody is talking about rent-free accomodation. But taking advantage of people at the bottom end of the market by squeezing the last penny out of them for a tiny bedsit is just sheer greed, not idealistic left wing nonsense

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...
My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to make a profit from renting out property, but a landlord is dealing with people here. Therefore, an interest in housing for a start, a knowledge of the law, being good at dealing with people are other reasons why a landlord could be interested in renting out a property....

If you don't generate income from it, how does the LL pay for the costs of this "hobby".

RedXIV

Darlughda wrote: »

My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

Your problem is with this statement. Landlords are there to make money, nobody provides lodgings because they "get on with people", it is about making an income from a business.

I THINK I understand the point you're trying to make which is IRRESPONSIBLE landlords are a bad thing, as in ones that will screw people over to make a profit, however, ALL landlords are in the game to make money, just some are responsible and some are not

Snakeblood

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, you all seem determined to deliberately misunderstand me. Instead of throwing silly insults at me why not read my post properly.

My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to make a profit from renting out property, but a landlord is dealing with people here. Therefore, an interest in housing for a start, a knowledge of the law, being good at dealing with people are other reasons why a landlord could be interested in renting out a property.

A property should be decent, and furnished appropriately-(not with the current vogue for decrepit nursing home chic).
'Fit for purpose'- what about well maintained, and somewhere the landlord would live themselves?

If a landlord wants a deposit and months rent in advance, fine as long as that landlord ensures the tenant has their deposit back in time for them to secure their next accomodation.

Nobody is talking about rent-free accomodation. But taking advantage of people at the bottom end of the market by squeezing the last penny out of them for a tiny bedsit is just sheer greed, not idealistic left wing nonsense

That sort of stuff needs to be legislated for, to some extent, and then the onus is on the renter to look for those things. I agree that many landlords suck, but with the volume of property on the market, it's possible for Renters to demand changes to the accommodation, it's not all on the landlord to provide awesome accommodation. Why should they if Renters are satisfied with less?

Ortiz

As a landlord you can do whatever the hell you like - as long as it's not breaking the law.

Design a bedsit with a dirty brown flowery carpet, a sea shell 50 year old 3 piece suite, one single bed and no kitchen if you like. If a tenant is willing to take it in that state good enough for em!

Darlughda it's ALL about making money. Take what you can get and as long as you're adhering to the law you can do what you like

Darlughda

Ortiz wrote: »

As a landlord you can do whatever the hell you like - as long as it's not breaking the law.

Design a bedsit with a dirty brown flowery carpet, a sea shell 50 year old 3 piece suite, one single bed and no kitchen if you like. If a tenant is willing to take it in that state good enough for em!

Darlughda it's ALL about making money. Take what you can get and as long as you're adhering to the law you can do what you like

This.
This kind of odious attitude is what I am talking about.

I am not talking about people living rent free or anything like that, nor did I say that making a profit is inherently wrong.

What is wrong are people who are landlords and have this kind of attitude. 'Screw- 'em- and- make as- much- money- as- I- want -even- if- I- wouldn't- live- in -that- rathole in- a- fit' kind of mentality.

Ortiz, you are the kind of landlord decent tenants should be warned about.

MagicMarker

Some landlords are ****, some are good.

This logic applies to everything in the universe, now if you don't mind I'm off to start a thread on why all oranges should be sweet.

BostonB

Its the Ryan Air of Landlords.

At the end of the day the LL decides what kinda property and thus tenants they want, by what the deliver. Tenants force Landlords to improve their standards, by not renting crap. There's no incentive for LL to spend money on furnishings, if it doesn't get them more money and better tenants, or of the tenants, break or steal the furniture and fittings. The cost of fixing that, or replacing might be the difference of making a loss or not.

I'm not saying all tenants or landlords are like that, but its the reasons why it happens. In Europe the standard is to rent unfurnished Which eliminates all this hassle for both LL and tenant.

Ortiz

@ Darlughda

Why???

Surely the tenants can make their own decisions? If I want to offer my dump for rent and someone is willing to rent it WHY is it wrong that I let them??!!

I'll surely have to offer a low rent in order to rent the place so the tenants will pay less due to the quality.

As long as I adhere to law throughout the process and both parties are willing then WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?!

How you don't understand any of this amazes me

Darlughda

BostonB wrote: »

Its the Ryan Air of Landlords.

At the end of the day the LL decides what kinda property and thus tenants they want, by what the deliver. Tenants force Landlords to improve their standards, by not renting crap. There's no incentive for LL to spend money on furnishings, if it doesn't get them more money and better tenants, or of the tenants, break or steal the furniture and fittings. The cost of fixing that, or replacing might be the difference of making a loss or not.

I'm not saying all tenants or landlords are like that, but its the reasons why it happens. In Europe the standard is to rent unfurnished Which eliminates all this hassle for both LL and tenant.

BostonB, I understand what you are saying.

However, for people who are forced to scrabble for a half decent place at the lower end of the market, it can be very hard for them to force LLs to improve their standards, and they have to end up making do with the crap and thus the cycle continues.

Better tenants are NOT necessarily those who have more money.

The attitude of there is no incentive for a LL to spend money on furnishings illustrates the whole point of why I started this thread.

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...
I am not talking about people living rent free or anything like that, nor did I say that making a profit is inherently wrong. ...

I can't see any other interpretation of this....

Darlughda wrote: »

...
Nonetheless, the idea of being a landlord being primarily a business decision is one that makes me .
This suggests a greedy individual who gives not a rat's ass about an individual only the bottom line on the return of their investments....

Perhaps you intended a different meaning...

Darlughda

Ortiz wrote: »

@ Darlughda

Why???

Surely the tenants can make their own decisions? If I want to offer my dump for rent and someone is willing to rent it WHY is it wrong that I let them??!!

I'll surely have to offer a low rent in order to rent the place so the tenants will pay less due to the quality.

As long as I adhere to law throughout the process and both parties are willing then WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?!

How you don't understand any of this amazes me

How you don't understand how it is wrong to take advantage of people who are poor amazes me.

Desperate people are forced to live in this kind of low quality hole, yet you would not dream of living there yourself, but have no moral qualms about squeezing the last penny out of people with little other choice.

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

BostonB, I understand what you are saying.

However, for people who are forced to scrabble for a half decent place at the lower end of the market, it can be very hard for them to force LLs to improve their standards, and they have to end up making do with the crap and thus the cycle continues.

Well its how the free market works. The alternative is for the state to regulate it properly.

Darlughda wrote: »

Better tenants are NOT necessarily those who have more money.

Thats not the issue. There a range of accommodation pitched at different budgets. The LL can choose to rent bedsits or mansion.

Darlughda wrote: »

The attitude of there is no incentive for a LL to spend money on furnishings illustrates the whole point of why I started this thread.

Regardless of attitude, its still fundamentally a business decision.

Faolchu

Darlughda wrote: »

My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

but from teh POV of the lanlord it is a money making excercise, only an insane landlord would go into it not to make money or break even. to go in with teh intention of making a lose is insane and said landlord would need to be put in a padded cell.

Darlughda wrote: »

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to make a profit from renting out property, but a landlord is dealing with people here.

so are car sales men, so are icecream van drivers, so are taxi drivers, they all deal with people but their primary goal is to have an income in excess of their expenditure. if they didnt they wouldnt be around for long.

Darlughda wrote: »

A property should be decent, and furnished appropriately-(not with the current vogue for decrepit nursing home chic).
'Fit for purpose'- what about well maintained,

thats a given and most good landlords will provide that, it makes sound business sense to have a property that people want to move into. if they dont then ther profit margens would drop.

Darlughda wrote: »

If a landlord wants a deposit and months rent in advance, fine as long as that landlord ensures the tenant has their deposit back in time for them to secure their next accomodation.

I'm not a landlord but i would think that a good few do actually do this.

Darlughda wrote: »

Nobody is talking about rent-free accomodation. But taking advantage of people at the bottom end of the market by squeezing the last penny out of them for a tiny bedsit is just sheer greed, not idealistic left wing nonsense

any business has a bottom line that must be maintained to remain profitable. if a tenant can not afford a property that's not the landlords fault. well not 100% his fault anyway. a certain level of profit needs to be made to make the business viable. if i was in the game and only clearing 50-100 a month on a property personally i wouldnt thing it a viable business

Darlughda wrote: »

How you don't understand how it is wrong to take advantage of people who are poor amazes me.

how is running a business and asking for what you feel is the right sum for the property you offer wrong? is it the landlords fault that the renter is poor? no. its either the renters fault because they have no skills that are considerd worth paying for (harsh i know but it is a reality) or teh country for failing that individual and not assisting the poor.


I think the OP may have been either burned by a bad landlord or may not have the money to move into an property becuase the rent is too high.

Ortiz

If I did up the property I could command a higher rent thus excluding those people as possible tenants though. Their financial situation is a core element of this argument.

I completely agree that the law should be adhered to as in if there are problems throughout the tenancy with things like heating, water supply etc. they should be resolved asap.

However if a tenant is willing to rent a property in its current state how can you have any sympathy for them whatsoever?

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

How you don't understand how it is wrong to take advantage of people who are poor amazes me.

Desperate people are forced to live in this kind of low quality hole, yet you would not dream of living there yourself, but have no moral qualms about squeezing the last penny out of people with little other choice.

The alternative to making money, in order to stay in business, is to be a charity. But even charities needs money. They just don't get it from the same sources. If the state provided housing, then people would have a choice. of course someone would still have to pay for running and maintenance of the state housing. Of course the state needs to make money, or it goes broke.

You can't get away that its all about money at the end of the day. Other models have not worked. we may not like it, but thats our reality.

Darlughda

Right I am just going to clarify exactly what I mean here.

Housing is a basic human need. The is a huge amount of people in this country at the moment in need of housing.

People who go into the business of renting out their property have a responsibility not to take advantage of people just for the sake of profit.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit from renting out property, but there is when they are taking advantage of people.

Faolchu

Darlughda wrote: »

People who go into the business of renting out their property have a responsibility not to take advantage of people just for the sake of profit.
.

actually they dont. they have a responsibility to adhere to the law. register the property, pay taxes and meet certain minimum standards.

the same could be said about an item that takes €5 to make but €50 to purchase. the primary goal of a business is to make a profit.

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...
There is nothing wrong with making a profit from renting out property, but there is when they are taking advantage of people.

Is that any different from one shop charging 40% more for milk than a shop on the other side of the street.

Darlughda

Faolchu wrote: »

actually they dont. they have a responsibility to adhere to the law. register the property, pay taxes and meet certain minimum standards.

the same could be said about an item that takes €5 to make but €50 to purchase. the primary goal of a business is to make a profit.

Well, this is why I started the thread.

There is a moral responsibility there when you are dealing with people's basic need for shelter.

But, its far too easy for someone to take advantage of others when they can tell themselves 'well, I'm adhering to the basics of the law...so I'm perfectly entitled to grab as much money as I can out of people'.

professore

I think the OP's point is one of society vs economy.

From a purely economic perspective, if is legal to shoot people in the street in front of their families, and you can make a profit from it by selling them for soap, then it's perfectly fine to do so.

There are always plenty of people out there who will do anything for money.

(I'm not saying all LL's or businesspeople are like this before people jump down my throat - I'm a businessperson!)

That's where regulation comes in.

Ortiz

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, this is why I started the thread.

There is a moral responsibility there when you are dealing with people's basic need for shelter.

But, its far too easy for someone to take advantage of others when they can tell themselves 'well, I'm adhering to the basics of the law...so I'm perfectly entitled to grab as much money as I can out of people'.

Damn right ya gotta look after #1 which is yourself. Get the absolute maximum you can for your property.

As long as you're not putting the tenants health at risk and are adhering to the law then I think you should try and get the absolute most that you can.

I'd always fix things for my tenants asap and I'd also furnish the property quite nicely and look after it in between tenancies. I would never neglect my tenants, would always be contactable by phone, would try to have a good relationship with them and supply them with what they need - All with the goal to ensure they are happy so they keep paying their rent.

You seem to think that tenants are hard done by when they rent a 'dump' which is wrong.

Like I said before if the landlord refurbished this dump and furnished it beautifully then he could command a higher rent thus excluding the tenants in question

Darlughda

Ortiz wrote: »

As long as you're not putting the tenants health at risk and are adhering to the law then I think you should try and get the absolute most that you can.

I'd always fix things for my tenants asap and I'd also furnish the property quite nicely and look after it in between tenancies. I would never neglect my tenants, would always be contactable by phone, would try to have a good relationship with them and supply them with what they need - All with the goal to ensure they are happy so they keep paying their rent.

Oh I doubt that is true Ortiz, as you have already stated:

Ortiz wrote: »

Design a bedsit with a dirty brown flowery carpet, a sea shell 50 year old 3 piece suite, one single bed and no kitchen if you like. If a tenant is willing to take it in that state good enough for em!

Ortiz wrote: »

Surely the tenants can make their own decisions? If I want to offer my dump for rent and someone is willing to rent it WHY is it wrong that I let them??!!

So, you think that it is okay to have a dump to rent out, and doing it up means you should charge your tenants a higher rent?

Unless, you are talking luxury, exclusive furnishings, I think it is just plain wrong of you not to have a place done up nicely for lower income tenants. They can be decent long term tenants you know.

In fact you seem to be a prime example of somebody who would just follow the bare minimum of the law, so you can justify to yourself taking advantage of poorer people and scraping what you can out of them:

Ortiz wrote: »

However if a tenant is willing to rent a property in its current state how can you have any sympathy for them whatsoever?

Ortiz wrote: »

Darlughda it's ALL about making money. Take what you can get and as long as you're adhering to the law you can do what you like

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, this is why I started the thread.

There is a moral responsibility there when you are dealing with people's basic need for shelter. ...

Thats the states responsibility. or societies.

But it doesn't make any sense to say its the LL's.

If there were no landlord serving this market where would these tenants go?

BostonB

I think you think theres loads of money in this. Many LL are making a loss with their rentals because of their mortgages and paying the shortfall from their wages, if indeed they are working, they maybe out of a job themselves.

Even if theres no mortgage, the costs of redoing a house, and furnishings everytime, can mean theres no point in doing when you consider the tax, and perhaps theres a few or many months with no rent.

Faolchu

Darlughda wrote: »

There is a moral responsibility there when you are dealing with people's basic need for shelter. .

I think you're way too idealistic and fear that when you fall to earth the bump will hurt. the only possible moral responsibility would be to provide running clean water, hot and cold, wash and toilet facilities, some form of heating & light, security in the sense that the doors/windows can be locked, and free from pest infestation. what else should teh landlord be morally responsible to provide? SKY Digatil? a 60 inch plasma with XBOX or PS3? an individuals financial position is not the responsibility of teh LL.

i could say that the person that has no skills and is unemployable has no morals because they have allowed themselves become a burden on the rest of us and our taxes go to support them.

Darlughda wrote: »

But, its far too easy for someone to take advantage of others when they can tell themselves 'well, I'm adhering to the basics of the law...so I'm perfectly entitled to grab as much money as I can out of people'.

well you see that's the whole priciple of the free world, once you adhere to the law then you are fully entitled to make a profit. also they will only get what people are willing to pay

Ortiz

Darlughda wrote: »

Oh I doubt that is true Ortiz, as you have already stated:


So, you think that it is okay to have a dump to rent out, and doing it up means you should charge your tenants a higher rent?

Unless, you are talking luxury, exclusive furnishings, I think it is just plain wrong of you not to have a place done up nicely for lower income tenants. They can be decent long term tenants you know.

In fact you seem to be a prime example of somebody who would just follow the bare minimum of the law, so you can justify to yourself taking advantage of poorer people and scraping what you can out of them:

Ok Darlughda I think you're getting a little confused here. I said if you can rent a dump legally and want to do that then fire away - I then said that I personally would look after my tenants, always with the rental income they provide in mind. So lumping my quotes together to try and twist my words ain't gonna work.

And yes I do think totally refurbishing a dump will increase its rental value. If you don't understand why then stay away from property investment. It's pretty basic stuff really

Sydney25

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, this is why I started the thread.



But, its far too easy for someone to take advantage of others when they can tell themselves 'well, I'm adhering to the basics of the law...so I'm perfectly entitled to grab as much money as I can out of people'.

This applies both ways. As explained to you in another thread, there are many tenants out there that abuse the system causing much difficulty and financial hardship to decent landlords.

Perhaps an issue of the times we are in is; tenants taking on properties they cannot afford when their circumstances change? Instead of 'cutting their cloth accordingly' they use the system to prop up their lifestyle?

ztoical

Most people would consider health care and food basic human rights as well but no one is going to say doctors and supermarkets should not be making a profit from their jobs so I don't understand why people think a LL should be providing housing for no profit. If the tenant can't afford to pay their power bill or buy food should the LL step in and cover that cost as well?

It is the states job to provide basic housing for those who are in need of it not private citizens. We do all help with providing for our fellow citizens by paying our taxes to help pay for the welfare state that we may all avail of if and when we find we are in need of it.

The issue is not with LL or tenants but the current system in place regarding the legalities of private rental. I've rented in Ireland and in several different countries [in Europe and North American] and most other countries have far better systems and attitudes in place for long term rental then Ireland does and the LL there make a profit from the service they are providing just like any other business.

BostonB

Sydney25 wrote: »

...Perhaps an issue of the times we are in is; tenants taking on properties they cannot afford when their circumstances change? Instead of 'cutting their cloth accordingly' they use the system to prop up their lifestyle?

I think many just bury their heads in the sand instead of dealing with the issue. I've seen tenants being offered cheaper accommodation, perhaps smaller, but actually nicer. Not much further away, but still refuse to leave, and fall into arrears and then eviction, simply because they won't move to a smaller place.

Makes no sense to me. But it happens. Likewise I've seen LL not drop their rent, lose tenants, then be stuck with a empty property for months. That doesn't make sense either.

tara73

OP, you are kind of complaining about 'this bad world/ all these bad landlords', so the question is, do you have a model/suggestion how to solve this?

I think you can whinge about this/get angry for all your life, as there will never be only 'good' people/LL's'.

don't get me wrong, I think it's very brave and relevant to address that LL's shouldn't be greedy and provide decent accommodation for the price they get/want....but if you start this discussion I would expect you have some sort of solution or ideas to tackle this problem.

for example, do you want kind of a communist model, to have the state provide standard apartments/houses for everybody and it is not allowed for anybody to privately rent?
or should potential landlords have to pass an exam to show they qualify as a decent landlord...

how would you solve your query/complain? Personally I don't think it's solvable, as there are always 'good and bad' people out there:rolleyes:

the_syco

Darlughda wrote: »

This.
This kind of odious attitude is what I am talking about.

Two landlords. One offers the above for €50 a week, and the other offers what you'd like to see in a house for €100 a week. Both will be taken. The sh|thole may be a sh|thole, but it'll be a sh|thole that someone can afford. The other one with the mod cons you want will be that much more expensive, as it was more expensive for the landlord to provide such facilities.

You could close down the €50 a week place, but then where'd they go? They wouldn't be able to afford the €100 a week place, and thus be homeless. Sometimes a sh|thole is better than nowhere.

Darlughda wrote: »

The attitude of there is no incentive for a LL to spend money on furnishings illustrates the whole point of why I started this thread.

So all landlords should provide the same great facilities regardless of how little rent they receive? This is a naive idea.

You don't seem to understand that not all landlords are rich. Not all landlords can afford to buy good apartments, and fill them with nice stuff.

Darlughda wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with making a profit from renting out property, but there is when they are taking advantage of people.

Who is taking advantage of them? If you think the rent is too high, rent somewhere else. If the high rent place has a TV, and the low rent place doesn't have a TV, use the money you saved by renting the low rent place to buy a TV.

reitseal

Darlughda wrote: »

Right I am just going to clarify exactly what I mean here.

Housing is a basic human need. The is a huge amount of people in this country at the moment in need of housing.

People who go into the business of renting out their property have a responsibility not to take advantage of people just for the sake of profit.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit from renting out property, but there is when they are taking advantage of people.

To a large extent, I get what you're saying and agree with it but Darlughda, that's purely aspirational. The reality of the rental sector in Ireland right now is that it's a steaming turd pile. I rented out a house for a good few years (don't even like using the word landlord cos it was just a situation where I was moving away for a while and needed the house when I came back) and I can tell you that despite my best efforts, the tenants I had were scum - Irish, non-Irish, social welfare, professional - $ssholes the lot of them. I was a brilliant landlord, gave them everything they needed, kept the place in good order, even rent reductions now and again and would have kept the rent low for a good tenant, and I can tell you that time and time again, the place was trashed in various different ways and if it wasn't that, it was calls from the police about parties etc.
And don't even start me on so-called letting agents who imo are a lazy bunch of money-grabbing twunts.

Had to give up on it in the end. Why? I wasn't able to get a decent tenant, that's why. So Darlughda, believe me, while I want things to conform to your ideal, they're hella far away from it right now...

Germany has it sussed. Anyone who's rented a place in Germany will know exactly what I mean

BostonB

reitseal wrote: »

...
Germany has it sussed. Anyone who's rented a place in Germany will know exactly what I mean

+1

When I was there you got a bare painted flat, all white. You gave it back in the same condition. Bare flat freshly painted. All white. All by the book. You bought your own furniture.