There's eviction,and then,there's EVICTION.

beauf

Regulations which aren't enforce is not regulation. Its just lip service.

gaius c

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

When I started work and even going to school there were lads that wanted to borrow money especially when working and staying away from home. ''Can I have a fiver(or a tenner) until Friday''

After a while you knew the lads that would pay it back without asking. those you had to remind(which I hated) but would pay when reminded and those that you had to chase or would never get it back from. I knew who not to lend to after a while and those that I would prefer not to lend to(because i had to remind them) and those that no matter if they asked you for a fifty it was no issue.

The banks during the boom did not following proper banking procedure. I heard a banker who is Irish and the head of a Chilean bank speak about banking and he was very critical of Irish banks during the boom. He considered a lot of the lending reckless in the extreme.

Dead right FP. The lads who paid you back on time and those who never borrowed at all should definitely be the ones to foot the bill for the lads who didn't pay you back.

Because that's what you're proposing except that it's with taxpayers money.

Farmer Pudsey

gaius c wrote: »

Dead right FP. The lads who paid you back on time and those who never borrowed at all should definitely be the ones to foot the bill for the lads who didn't pay you back.

Because that's what you're proposing except that it's with taxpayers money.

Or you could look at it another way after a while i carried out good banking practice and did not lend to those that could not pay. If I had lend to them I would have suffered the loss and the taxpayer (in this case myself) would be out of pocket.

The point I am making is that there was reckless lending what is the best way out of it. That is to let the banks work through the books and carry out proper banking analysis. Those who think that mass repossessions will solve the present rental situtation are deluding them selves. The reality on the ground is that for some (mostly investors) there is really good value on the ground and they are snapping up these properties and renting these out and are at a break even point or better on present propert value's

gaius c

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Or you could look at it another way after a while i carried out good banking practice and did not lend to those that could not pay. If I had lend to them I would have suffered the loss and the taxpayer (in this case myself) would be out of pocket.

No. YOU would have been out of pocket and your own creditors would laugh at the notion that they give you a payment holiday because of your poor business sense. If they were being especially helpful, they'd advise you to pull in the heavies to make your debtors pay up.
Actual taxpayers (the people not involved in your transactions) wouldn't give a damn until you put your hands into their pockets to cover your losses.

The point I am making is that there was reckless lending what is the best way out of it. That is to let the banks work through the books and carry out proper banking analysis. Those who think that mass repossessions will solve the present rental situtation are deluding them selves. The reality on the ground is that for some (mostly investors) there is really good value on the ground and they are snapping up these properties and renting these out and are at a break even point or better on present propert value's

The point you're making is that water needs to be muddied in order that folk not paying their debts get wealth transfers from everybody else. Everything else you say is deflection and smokescreen for that purpose and we're calling you on it.

Farmer Pudsey

gaius c wrote: »

No. YOU would have been out of pocket and your own creditors would laugh at the notion that they give you a payment holiday because of your poor business sense. If they were being especially helpful, they'd advise you to pull in the heavies to make your debtors pay up.
Actual taxpayers (the people not involved in your transactions) wouldn't give a damn until you put your hands into their pockets to cover your losses.



The point you're making is that water needs to be muddied in order that folk not paying their debts get wealth transfers from everybody else. Everything else you say is deflection and smokescreen for that purpose and we're calling you on it.

My are we not the big boy.


Would you clarify exactly what you are calling me out on

As well do you think that mass repossessions will solve Dublin city's present issue with rental and house prices increases.

maryishere

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The banks during the boom did not following proper banking procedure. I heard a banker who is Irish and the head of a Chilean bank speak about banking and he was very critical of Irish banks during the boom. He considered a lot of the lending reckless in the extreme.

+1. Why should such reckless business behaviour by certain bankers ( a few institutions were more notorious than others / led the way ) be rewarded by a bailout by the taxpayer, and all of these bankers being allowed to keep their bonuses and fat pensions? What incentive is there to stop certain bankers doing the same thing again? Most of the evections would not be necessary if the banks lent as prudently 9 years ago as they did 19, 29 and 39 years ago.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

My are we not the big boy.


Would you clarify exactly what you are calling me out on

As well do you think that mass repossessions will solve Dublin city's present issue with rental and house prices increases.

We will not have mass repossessions anywhere even if we make everyone pay up.

Ridiculous scaremongering.

Mortgage-holders are a minority of property owners and mortgage-holders in arrears are a minority of mortgage-holders and mortgage-holders who will never be able to pay back are a minority of mortgage-holders in arrears.

Farmer Pudsey

gaius c wrote: »

we're calling you on it.

Godge wrote: »

We will not have mass repossessions anywhere even if we make everyone pay up.

Ridiculous scaremongering.

Mortgage-holders are a minority of property owners and mortgage-holders in arrears are a minority of mortgage-holders and mortgage-holders who will never be able to pay back are a minority of mortgage-holders in arrears.

Godge I did not state we would have mass repossessions, however some on this thread are trying to equate low present levels of repossession with higher rents. There are about 135K in arrears of which 60K are longterm. Some in this thread think that the present issue with increasing rents and house prices can be solved by repossoessions. I have a different opinion.

Other consider that all those with arears are Buytolets I have a different opinion. These same people consider that it is totally the fault of the borrower and the banks bear no responsibility I have a different opinion. They consider that the tax system will fall apart if all the debts of long term defaulters were written off(which they will not be), with out considering what we have alread paid in bank bailouts and excessive expenditure over taxation.

http://www.finfacts-blog.com/2011/03/irish-national-debt-public-spending-was.html


The other issue I want Gaius to clarify is what he is calling me out on he has been hinting and puffing now for 2-3 posts spit it and spell it out.

I have a fair idea of his thinking but I would like him to clarify.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Godge I did not state we would have mass repossessions, however some on this thread are trying to equate low present levels of repossession with higher rents. There are about 135K in arrears of which 60K are longterm. Some in this thread think that the present issue with increasing rents and house prices can be solved by repossoessions. I have a different opinion.

Other consider that all those with arears are Buytolets I have a different opinion. These same people consider that it is totally the fault of the borrower and the banks bear no responsibility I have a different opinion. They consider that the tax system will fall apart if all the debts of long term defaulters were written off(which they will not be), with out considering what we have alread paid in bank bailouts and excessive expenditure over taxation.

http://www.finfacts-blog.com/2011/03/irish-national-debt-public-spending-was.html

.

But what I know is if your type of debt-forgiveness comes in, most will not be deserving cases, they will be people whose daddy knows the bank manager, the same way they got the over-stretched loan in the first place.

gaius c

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

My are we not the big boy.


Would you clarify exactly what you are calling me out on

The two sentences before the bit you bolded.

As well do you think that mass repossessions will solve Dublin city's present issue with rental and house prices increases.

The market is broken, completely and utterly broken and part of the reason it's broken is that people can sit in houses they are not paying for while others are paying extra for the smaller amount of houses that are available.
So yes, the repossessions of the relatively small number of households that are in arrears will go a long way towards fixing this problem.

Forget the term MASS repossessions. That's more of your spin. As Godge pointed out, it's a fairly small portion of Irish households that would lose the home they are not paying for and it's considerably smaller than the number of households being pinned to their collars by spiraling rents.

Farmer Pudsey

gaius c wrote: »

The two sentences before the bit you bolded.



The market is broken, completely and utterly broken and part of the reason it's broken is that people can sit in houses they are not paying for while others are paying extra for the smaller amount of houses that are available.
So yes, the repossessions of the relatively small number of households that are in arrears will go a long way towards fixing this problem.

Forget the term MASS repossessions. That's more of your spin. As Godge pointed out, it's a fairly small portion of Irish households that would lose the home they are not paying for and it's considerably smaller than the number of households being pinned to their collars by spiraling rents.

However it will do nothing to stop rents continuing to increase sharpley in Dublin and to increase in Cork and Galway and start to increase in Limerick. Ronan Lyons of DAFT on a program yesterday spoke about a 15% rise in rents before the building cost/rental imbalance in the sector was addressed. This bears grim reading for renters who in general are young people drawn to Dublin for employment. At present it was his opinion that Dublin rents were 80-90% of end of boom rents. This idea that minimal repossession or even if 20-30K homes were repossessed that this would equalise the market is beyond belief.

In the case of any sort of fairly agressive repossession policy the real winners will be investors who will snap up houses that come for sale in the knowledge of high rents contining to be available for those that were living in those houses. If you are right these are all BTL's you are only swopping one landlord for another however I doubt if all repossessions will be from BTL.

The reality is at present Dublin is sucking in economic activity at a higher rate that the rest of the country and this is increasing the demand for labour that is increasing it population and the demand for accomdation.

I still hold to the opinion that Dublin requires a sharp increase in accomdation units that will require a large number of Houses/apartment. However if you believe different a year or two will tell a tale.

By the way you still have not clarified what you are callin me out on rather you wriggled you way around it.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

However it will do nothing to stop rents continuing to increase sharpley in Dublin and to increase in Cork and Galway and start to increase in Limerick. Ronan Lyons of DAFT on a program yesterday spoke about a 15% rise in rents before the building cost/rental imbalance in the sector was addressed. This bears grim reading for renters who in general are young people drawn to Dublin for employment. At present it was his opinion that Dublin rents were 80-90% of end of boom rents. This idea that minimal repossession or even if 20-30K homes were repossessed that this would equalise the market is beyond belief.

In the case of any sort of fairly agressive repossession policy the real winners will be investors who will snap up houses that come for sale in the knowledge of high rents contining to be available for those that were living in those houses. If you are right these are all BTL's you are only swopping one landlord for another however I doubt if all repossessions will be from BTL.

Respossessions resulting in an increase in the number of houses on the market which can be snapped up by investors should not influence the decision to go ahead and reposess properties where there is strategic default or where the persons owning a house simply can't afford the mortgage.

The idea that taxpayer funded banks should wholesale write off mortgate debt and allow the owners to continue to 100% own the house is not a reasonable proposition. Banks should instead restructure the debt allowing the perons to continue to pay what they really can afford and either increase the duration of the mortgage or take an equity stake in the house. If the owners don't agree then repossession must be a credible sanction.

Otherwise its a bloody free for all and as mentioned earlier its the shysters who will benefit most be they owner occupiers or buy to lets. Everyone has to be reasonable here and take some of the responsibility for the inapparopriate lending/borrowing that happenned during the so-called boom. The idea that the taxpayer should continue to bankroll write-offs/writedowns for people who continue to benefit from the ownership even to the extent that they could profit from the sale of the house in the future is is simply not sustainable. Of course, if the banks were commercially viable and were able to fund these writedowns themselves then this is a completely different issue as it is a private matter between he bank and its customer.

Farmer Pudsey

You have to wonder how viable restructuring is. Lots of loans at end of boom were 40 year duration or interest only, the theory being that the upswing in price would allow capital appreciation. So restructuring these into longer terms is not viable. Most earlier/mid boom loans with tracker loans are still ok. Actually the steep increase in rental costs is helping BTL back in profitability even though in negative equity.

The real issue is what is required to stablise and then if possible reduce Dublin property and Rental prices. The banking mortgage loan book will be solved by the general day to day working of normal banking activity.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In the case of any sort of fairly agressive repossession policy the real winners will be investors who will snap up houses that come for sale in the knowledge of high rents contining to be available for those that were living in those houses. If you are right these are all BTL's you are only swopping one landlord for another however I doubt if all repossessions will be from BTL.

.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

I just don't get your problem. Houses are an investment, they go up and down. If they go down, someone loses money and someone else buys the investment. That person may make money or they may not, who knows what the future brings?

Why should one person who made a bad investment in 2007 (in a house) be protected while another who made a bad investment in 2007 (shares in Anglo-Irish Bank) lose everything?

gaius c

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

However it will do nothing to stop rents continuing to increase sharpley in Dublin and to increase in Cork and Galway and start to increase in Limerick. Ronan Lyons of DAFT on a program yesterday spoke about a 15% rise in rents before the building cost/rental imbalance in the sector was addressed. This bears grim reading for renters who in general are young people drawn to Dublin for employment. At present it was his opinion that Dublin rents were 80-90% of end of boom rents. This idea that minimal repossession or even if 20-30K homes were repossessed that this would equalise the market is beyond belief.

It will help actually because it will do away with the charade that sees homes advertised for sale that are not really for sale, which is adding to the confusion in the market.

In the case of any sort of fairly agressive repossession policy the real winners will be investors who will snap up houses that come for sale in the knowledge of high rents contining to be available for those that were living in those houses. If you are right these are all BTL's you are only swopping one landlord for another however I doubt if all repossessions will be from BTL.

So? No problem with solvent landlords who pay their way.

The reality is at present Dublin is sucking in economic activity at a higher rate that the rest of the country and this is increasing the demand for labour that is increasing it population and the demand for accomdation.

You make it sound like a TORNADO OF JOB CREATION but the reality is that we've had a bit of an uptick, much of which is centered in urban areas but it's still a long way short of employment levels and standards that we had prior to the whole thing going kaboom.

I still hold to the opinion that Dublin requires a sharp increase in accomdation units that will require a large number of Houses/apartment. However if you believe different a year or two will tell a tale.

Nah. Just take the folk not paying out of their houses, give those houses to people who will pay and the folk moved out get to re-start again with a clean slate. Anything else is a wealth transfer to the foolish & unwary.

By the way you still have not clarified what you are callin me out on rather you wriggled you way around it.

It's quite clear and more to the point, it's quite clear to everybody else (note all the thumbs up the post got) so either you genuinely don't get it or you're trying to entice me into into posting something that would give you an excuse to start belting the report button. Either way, I'm not going to help you.

Farmer Pudsey

gaius c wrote: »

It will help actually because it will do away with the charade that sees homes advertised for sale that are not really for sale, which is adding to the confusion in the market.



So? No problem with solvent landlords who pay their way.


You make it sound like a TORNADO OF JOB CREATION but the reality is that we've had a bit of an uptick, much of which is centered in urban areas but it's still a long way short of employment levels and standards that we had prior to the whole thing going kaboom.



Nah. Just take the folk not paying out of their houses, give those houses to people who will pay and the folk moved out get to re-start again with a clean slate. Anything else is a wealth transfer to the foolish & unwary.



It's quite clear and more to the point, it's quite clear to everybody else (note all the thumbs up the post got) so either you genuinely don't get it or you're trying to entice me into into posting something that would give you an excuse to start belting the report button. Either way, I'm not going to help you.

I will deal with your points one by one

From my understanding most houses that are being sold by the bank or at the banks request it is the bank that is holding a reserve to make sure the property is not sold under it value (this may be to prevent backhanders)

I have no issue either but neither do I want to see an temporary artificial fall in property value that will only benefit those with fast or easy access to money or collateral. I want banks to maximise there return form these assets so that the taxpayer is protected.

There was about 60K extra people in jobs in 2013, employment is still rising sharply, Dublin is out preforming the rest of the country with maybe 60%+ of that activity. Economic activity is even sharper in 2014. Are there 60-70K more people working in Dublin in the last 18 months with maybe 50% of them coming from outside Dublin looking for accommodation.

You see Gaius you are still back to the theory of fast repossession and artificially collapsing the property market to benefit a small minority of people with ready cash, this money at present is moving into property in the rest of the country however if artificial low prices appear in Dublin it will move back in there to pick up cheap property that will inflate in value expodentially after the artificial crash. What you propose is a wealth transfer as well to those with access to ready cash such as myself.

I take no notice of getting thanks or of thanks being given to an oppossing opinion ( if it was Farming and Forestry I am ashamed to say it give me a tickle). It is not worrying me about that rabble that is thanking your posts but if it tickles you and makes your box tick that is OK with me. I have always understood that as other gallop one way walk slowly in the opposite they will catch up with you in the end.
I have not ever (I think) reported a post and I am not about to start now. Maybe I was just paranoid for a reason that remark about calling me out made me presume that I would benefit from my views. The reality is that any money I owe is commercial borrowing at a competitive rate. The reality is that artificial collapse in prices benefit my ilk who may be able to access money from banks with strong collateral and good business relationships with bank managers and credit unions. When people talk about cash buyers it is a misnomer, it is a buyer with access to fast money.

Like I have said in previous posts I own one house my own(mind you with the opportunities out there at present I am tempted to change my tack) my children at college or younger so neither do they. I also see that the government see the necessity to get houses/accommodation build in Dublin

Frank Lee Midere

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I will deal with your points one by one

From my understanding most houses that are being sold by the bank or at the banks request it is the bank that is holding a reserve to make sure the property is not sold under it value (this may be to prevent backhanders)

I have no issue either but neither do I want to see an temporary artificial fall in property value that will only benefit those with fast or easy access to money or collateral. I want banks to maximise there return form these assets so that the taxpayer is protected.

There was about 60K extra people in jobs in 2013, employment is still rising sharply, Dublin is out preforming the rest of the country with maybe 60%+ of that activity. Economic activity is even sharper in 2014. Are there 60-70K more people working in Dublin in the last 18 months with maybe 50% of them coming from outside Dublin looking for accommodation.

You see Gaius you are still back to the theory of fast repossession and artificially collapsing the property market to benefit a small minority of people with ready cash, this money at present is moving into property in the rest of the country however if artificial low prices appear in Dublin it will move back in there to pick up cheap property that will inflate in value expodentially after the artificial crash. What you propose is a wealth transfer as well to those with access to ready cash such as myself.

I take no notice of getting thanks or of thanks being given to an oppossing opinion ( if it was Farming and Forestry I am ashamed to say it give me a tickle). It is not worrying me about that rabble that is thanking your posts but if it tickles you and makes your box tick that is OK with me. I have always understood that as other gallop one way walk slowly in the opposite they will catch up with you in the end.
I have not ever (I think) reported a post and I am not about to start now. Maybe I was just paranoid for a reason that remark about calling me out made me presume that I would benefit from my views. The reality is that any money I owe is commercial borrowing at a competitive rate. The reality is that artificial collapse in prices benefit my ilk who may be able to access money from banks with strong collateral and good business relationships with bank managers and credit unions. When people talk about cash buyers it is a misnomer, it is a buyer with access to fast money.

Like I have said in previous posts I own one house my own(mind you with the opportunities out there at present I am tempted to change my tack) my children at college or younger so neither do they. I also see that the government see the necessity to get houses/accommodation build in Dublin

The last CSO figures showed that 100k people left Ireland to mid 2013. The 60k increase is mostly people who were already living here.

And you are defending your classes interests. A fall in property prices would mean you would lose your shirt. Cash is likely to run a mile from falling assets ( as it does in stock market reversals ) and 50% of last years purchasers were cash.

In the meantime falling prices help normal people who want to buy houses and aren't concerned about getting rental income or availing of the CGT boon dangle . Rising prices don't help normal people who want to buy houses. I can't say that fairer.

The governments supply increase are welcome although I fear they are over-reacting to a mini boom.

Farmer Pudsey

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The last CSO figures showed that 100k people left Ireland to mid 2013. The 60k increase is mostly people who were already living here.

And you are defending your classes interests. A fall in property prices would mean you would lose your shirt. Cash is likely to run a mile from falling assets ( as it does in stock market reversals ) and 50% of last years purchasers were cash.

In the meantime falling prices help normal people who want to buy houses and aren't concerned about getting rental income or availing of the CGT boon dangle . Rising prices don't help normal people who want to buy houses. I can't say that fairer.

The governments supply increase are welcome although I fear they are over-reacting to a mini boom.

If 60K new jobs have been created in Dublin since early 2013 not all these jobs were taken up by living in Dublin or even if they are may be moving away from home into accomodation nearer there job this has lead to an increase in rents. We also have the confidance factor where because of people having better job security they are willing to start thinking of buying property,this has lead to a surge in price.

A fall in property would not cause me to lose my shirt, as the only house I own is the one I live in. Rather it would be an opportunity to buy in cheap with strong rental income it would be a win win situtation. Cash is a perception it is rather those that have access to liquidity earlier. The ability to borrow before those further down the chain helps those with wealth.

Falling prices tend not to help normal people as banks tend to want higher deposits which can be harder to come by. The big winners for the last two years were those that had access to money to provide a heafty deposit to allow them to borrow against the property.

The best thing for ordinary people is that supply equal demand and prevents prices increasing sharply.

Farmer Pudsey

Was talking to an auctioneer that works along the west coast. He told me of an issue he is starting to come across. During the boom there was loads of houses build mostly section 23 or section 50 houses. Loads of these were rented now as the tax relief is used up they are being sold. However the buyers in general are people that want them as holiday homes. In general either banks or investors under pressure from banks are selling.

Now present tenants as they vacate are finding it harder and harder to find new accomadation and believe it or not rents are starting to rise.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Was talking to an auctioneer that works along the west coast. He told me of an issue he is starting to come across. During the boom there was loads of houses build mostly section 23 or section 50 houses. Loads of these were rented now as the tax relief is used up they are being sold. However the buyers in general are people that want them as holiday homes. In general either banks or investors under pressure from banks are selling.

Now present tenants as they vacate are finding it harder and harder to find new accomadation and believe it or not rents are starting to rise.

Section 50 is student accommodation.

I doubt very much that they are suitable for holiday homes both in terms of location and of layout (a small few around Galway and Letterkenny maybe but you don't have Section 50 student accommodation in the wilds of west Galway). Limerick City had quite a lot of


Section 50 student accommodation, not your premier holiday destination.

I think either you or the auctioneer is talking bs.


"D. Student Accommodation Relief
Particulars of the Scheme

The proposed development has to be located within an 8km radius of named 3rd Level Institutes/Colleges.
There has to be a minimum of 20 bed spaces.
Each unit has to have a minimum of 3 bed spaces – 55 sq.m.
Each unit has to have a maximum of 8 bed spaces – 180 sq.m.
For every 50 bed spaces, 1 bed space has to be provided for students with disabilities.
Every bed space has to be provided with a data connection.
A developer has to receive certification from a qualifying 3rd Level Institute as to how many bed spaces they require.
There is no cap on the rent you can charge.
Leases can be per bed space or unit."

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

Section 50 is student accommodation.

I doubt very much that they are suitable for holiday homes both in terms of location and of layout (a small few around Galway and Letterkenny maybe but you don't have Section 50 student accommodation in the wilds of west Galway). Limerick City had quite a lot of


Section 50 student accommodation, not your premier holiday destination.

I think either you or the auctioneer is talking bs.


"D. Student Accommodation Relief
Particulars of the Scheme

The proposed development has to be located within an 8km radius of named 3rd Level Institutes/Colleges.
There has to be a minimum of 20 bed spaces.
Each unit has to have a minimum of 3 bed spaces – 55 sq.m.
Each unit has to have a maximum of 8 bed spaces – 180 sq.m.
For every 50 bed spaces, 1 bed space has to be provided for students with disabilities.
Every bed space has to be provided with a data connection.
A developer has to receive certification from a qualifying 3rd Level Institute as to how many bed spaces they require.
There is no cap on the rent you can charge.
Leases can be per bed space or unit."

I said Section 23 or Section 50 it must be section 23, I had seen that both were coming to an end but did not know which was which. He just said that the capital allowances were finishing up and people were selling up

chopper6

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I said Section 23 or Section 50 it must be section 23, I had seen that both were coming to an end but did not know which was which. He just said that the capital allowances were finishing up and people were selling up

So is the auctioneer friend of yours doing okay?

Farmer Pudsey

chopper6 wrote: »

So is the auctioneer friend of yours doing okay?

Was working away for part of last week,went for a few pints one night. Got talking to a young lad, he is after getting a job with an auctioneer. After we had talked about GAA, the economy, we got talking property ( I think it is a good investment at present and information is everything) so he was telling me what was happening. This kind of information is better than the stuff you hear at the tea club in the morning.

Is he doing okay, not sure nice lad, good worker trying to make ends meet out there in the big bad world. Got a big wage rise this year.....he managed to get a job because the economy is lifting.

The_Captain

Personally I think the biggest problem is that young couple are effectively priced out of the market by financially stable property speculators looking to make an investment.

If prices are lowered, all available property will be snapped up by cash buyers.

The government needs to either implement some form of rent control (which doesn't really address the shortage of property just rocketing rents), provide major grants/incentives to first time buyers or people buying primary accommodation (incredibly unlikely) or tax the hell out of second homes (which they had the change to do but declined)

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I said Section 23 or Section 50 it must be section 23, I had seen that both were coming to an end but did not know which was which. He just said that the capital allowances were finishing up and people were selling up

The information got lost in translation obviously.

Do you know which type of Section 23 accommodation he was talking about? There were several different categories.

SpaceTime

Ireland and Britain do not get the concept that housing is as essential as food. If food prices were unaffordable being speculated upon like this they'd do something.

Labour are scratching their heads wondering why nobody voted for them while they're rubber stamping policies that are allowing situations like this to reemerge.

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

The information got lost in translation obviously.

Do you know which type of Section 23 accommodation he was talking about? There were several different categories.

Holiday homes in a in a west of Ireland tourism town. These were build under tax relief schemes and you could offset capital allowances against other rental income. You had to hold for 10 years and most are now maturing. My own opinion is that because of tax relief and low value banks were slow to foreclose or investors were able to carry the property over last few years. However now as tax relief is used up either bank is looking to foreclose or investor who may have no link to area is looking to exit deal. Also some were put in place as investment deals and maybe a condition was closing of fund on maturation of tax relief.

jmayo

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Was working away for part of last week,went for a few pints one night. Got talking to a young lad, he is after getting a job with an auctioneer. After we had talked about GAA, the economy, we got talking property ( I think it is a good investment at present and information is everything) so he was telling me what was happening. This kind of information is better than the stuff you hear at the tea club in the morning.

Is he doing okay, not sure nice lad, good worker trying to make ends meet out there in the big bad world. Got a big wage rise this year.....he managed to get a job because the economy is lifting.

Stop associating with auctioneers, it is giving you a warped view of the world and you then end up trying to inflict it on us all.

BTW you are beginning to sound like a lot of Irish property investors.
You think it is a good idea, you like to get information, but yet you don't even know what section tax exemption policy it was under. :rolleyes:

Farmer Pudsey

jmayo wrote: »

Stop associating with auctioneers, it is giving you a warped view of the world and you then end up trying to inflict it on us all.

BTW you are beginning to sound like a lot of Irish property investors.
You think it is a good idea, you like to get information, but yet you don't even know what section tax exemption policy it was under. :rolleyes:

The tax exemption is gone so I have no interest in looking it up or checking it out. I just look at figures, if it add up I may invest if not I won't. I was just showing the law of unintended consequences. Everybody thinks that repossession and quick sale will benefit first time buyers and those trying to get on to the property ladder.

This lad was also telling me of another issue even though the houses seem value they are being sold with contents that makes up 10-15% of price. However you have to apply for a mortgage on the sale value of the house less contents. The contents are worth less than the actual value put on them so again it entails a bigger deposit. This again helps the cash buyer or the investor as opposed to a first time buyer. A first time buyer must make up 25%ish value of the house

jmayo

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The tax exemption is gone so I have no interest in looking it up or checking it out. I just look at figures, if it add up I may invest if not I won't. I was just showing the law of unintended consequences. Everybody thinks that repossession and quick sale will benefit first time buyers and those trying to get on to the property ladder.

Ehh who said that repossessions would not benefit investors and people already with property ?
Of course it will really benefit those who have money to invest.
But it should help drive down prices and hence help first time buyers.
That is the point.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This lad was also telling me of another issue even though the houses seem value they are being sold with contents that makes up 10-15% of price. However you have to apply for a mortgage on the sale value of the house less contents. The contents are worth less than the actual value put on them so again it entails a bigger deposit. This again helps the cash buyer or the investor as opposed to a first time buyer. A first time buyer must make up 25%ish value of the house

Any more stories from this lad ?
Did he also tell you of any place with the written price lower than actual price and where you pay in cash so that some of the money can't be traced ?

BTW did you ever consider that some FTBs might actually be cash buyers ?

And it does kinda matter whether houses were section 23, because as shure as hell some of them were not really needed, could never find anyone to rent and were only ever attractive to buyers because of the attached tax writeoff.

From my experience most of the later section 23s were a folly just designed for tax writeoffs and to up the local councils planning contributions.