Rent control ruled out by report

handlemaster

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/landlords-could-raise-rents-to-guard-against-controls-report-1.2402301

New report rules out rent control as a solution to the current housing issues.Its interesting the government never wants to help private landlords but needs them as they themselves dont want to provide housing.

Aka Ishur

His own report says its a bad idea but Kelly presses ahead anyways. Not enough courage to put his hands up to say he has backed a loser. Reasonable people would have said fair play if he had come out and said, this idea won't work, lets look at other options.

Flatzie_poo

Now that those findings are out, it will be back to the government going back to that ridiculous spiel of saying it's a "moral issue" for private landlords to deflect attention from themselves.

I can't believe those proposals were allowed to go as far as they did.

Lazy solution.

handlemaster

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Now that those findings are out, it will be back to the government going back to that ridiculous spiel of saying it's a "moral issue" for private landlords to deflect attention from themselves.

I can't believe those proposals were allowed to go as far as they did.

Lazy solution.

They are after votes now. The general public sees landlord's as been cash rich and greedy. .. not realising that after mortgage payments, property tax , tax on rental income and other numerous expenses they just pass the money to someone else

Flatzie_poo

handlemaster wrote: »

They are after votes now. The general public sees landlord's as been cash rich and greedy. .. not realising that after mortgage payments, property tax , tax on rental income and other numerous expenses they just pass the money to someone else

Agreed!

After re-reading, I also retract using the word "solution" in my last post.

It's nothing of the sort.

Lazy/uneducated idea is more accurate.

godtabh

If they want more affordable rent let landlords act as a business and allow the same expenses that any other business can use as expenses.

gizmo555

It's axiomatic that the cure for high prices is high prices. In other words, high rents will attract investment, which should increase supply of rental property, in turn bringing down rents through normal market action.

Interference by the state in the process will only serve to deter investment and result in fewer properties being available to rent at a time when there's already a severe shortage.

Jaketherake

Its getting to the stage where the government seem to be basically taking control over an investors asset.

The investor puts in the legwork and the money and buys a property and then the government control what the investor can do with the property. They want to control how much you charge, how much profit is made, and even which tenants who rent the property.

The landlord has invested THEIR time and money and the government does what it likes with the property and takes 60% of the rent for themselves too.

Even if nothing happens with rent control now, the government have done irreparable damage to the market. No investor in their right mind would get into renting in Ireland now. God knows what will be along next year. As it is the investors control over their own asset is being eroded at an alarming rate.

Canadel

handlemaster wrote: »

They are after votes now. The general public sees landlord's as been cash rich and greedy. .. not realising that after mortgage payments, property tax , tax on rental income and other numerous expenses they just pass the money to someone else

You can realise all of those things and still acknowledge landlords as being cash rich and greedy, which admittedly the market allows them to be. Obviously it's pointless to criticise landlord's for not charging a fair rent, and referring to it as a "moral issue" isn't going to solve the situation any time soon. However, out rightly dismissing rent control isn't very smart either, unless of course you are in a position whereby you see housing as being entirely a speculative commodity to be traded with for maximum profit and minimum regard for those who rely on it to survive. In a situation like Ireland at the moment, where supply is spectacularly failing to meet demand, rent control is much more worthy of discussion than a simple "let the market decide" retort.

Aka Ishur

Canadel wrote: »

You can realise all of those things and still acknowledge landlords as being cash rich and greedy, which admittedly the market allows them to be. Obviously it's pointless to criticise landlord's for not charging a fair rent, and referring to it as a "moral issue" isn't going to solve the situation any time soon. However, out rightly dismissing rent control isn't very smart either, unless of course you are in a position whereby you see housing as being entirely a speculative commodity to be traded with for maximum profit and minimum regard for those who rely on it to survive. In a situation like Ireland at the moment, where supply is spectacularly failing to meet demand, rent control is much more worthy of discussion than a simple "let the market decide" retort.

You dismiss rent control when the experts you hire to look at the issue tell you it will make the problem worse. Anything else is just a populist sop going into an election. Of course I'm sure you'll be throwing your door open and comforting the additional homeless by telling them at least the landlords aren't making as much. Real comforting..

handlemaster

Canadel wrote: »

You can realise all of those things and still acknowledge landlords as being cash rich and greedy, which admittedly the market allows them to be. Obviously it's pointless to criticise landlord's for not charging a fair rent, and referring to it as a "moral issue" isn't going to solve the situation any time soon. However, out rightly dismissing rent control isn't very smart either, unless of course you are in a position whereby you see housing as being entirely a speculative commodity to be traded with for maximum profit and minimum regard for those who rely on it to survive. In a situation like Ireland at the moment, where supply is spectacularly failing to meet demand, rent control is much more worthy of discussion than a simple "let the market decide" retort.

The report says it wont work !!

Like every investment there has to be a return just because right now the public want more housing doesnt mean those who have invested should be screwed over in order make the government look better.

handlemaster

http://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/kelly-under-fire-as-rent-uncertainty-pushes-up-prices-34140815.html

Looks like the minister in charge of housing is desperate to pass the problem over

April 73

As soon as Alan Kelly started to talk about rent control it was pretty obvious that any landlord charging below-market rate was going to try to move rents up to market rates asap. Otherwise with the complete lack of clarity about what rent control means they could have been faced with being locked into below-market rates for years.
Kite flying without a clear policy in place is always a bad idea.

c montgomery

Agreed, hes not great at what he does and as the article says his abrasive style rubs people the wrong way and alienates himself. Not exactly what you want in a minister.

The only good proposal from him so far is to extend from 1 month to 3 months notice of rent increases. As a landlord and tenant i see no issue with this and indeed think even 4 months would be reasonable.

c montgomery

April 73 wrote: »

As soon as Alan Kelly started to talk about rent control it was pretty obvious that any landlord charging below-market rate was going to try to move rents up to market rates asap. Otherwise with the complete lack of clarity about what rent control means they could have been faced with being locked into below-market rates for years.
Kite flying without a clear policy in place is always a bad idea.

Indeed this is true, a landlord who rents out a house in the same estate as mine is increasing her rent from 650 to 850, not because the tenant has become difficult or anything but because she has become so aware of the market value rent due to all the media coverage.

On a side note my sister moved out of her rented hovel in Dublin a few weeks back, rent was 900 for 6 years, now rented for 1500. It's was an old damp 2 bed house close to the city centre. I feel sorry for people who have to pay these rents for poor accomidation.

usernamegoes

c montgomery wrote: »

The only good proposal from him so far is to extend from 1 month to 3 months notice of rent increases. As a landlord and tenant i see no issue with this and indeed think even 4 months would be reasonable.

At should at least be longer than the period of notice needed to be provided by the tenant to leave. It seems unfair that a person should be required to pay a rent they didn't agree to for a period of time

April 73

Good points about notice periods for rent increases. Making the notice period coincide with the notice that the tenant must give to quit the property would be very fair. Allowing an absolute minimum period of three months is not unreasonable.

There are plenty of ordinary non-greedy & accidental landlords out there worried about rent control who are currently charging below the going rate - for various reasons.

Alan Kelly has them worried that they will be tied in to those rents with no control for years to come. Plenty of landlords had to drop rents over the bad years because that's what market forces dictated. Now that rents are coming back up they fear having their hands tied behind their back.

Alan Kelly is putting too much responsibility onto private landlords to solve housing difficulties for social welfare recipients & lower income workers.

I wish he would sit down with an advisory group consisting of RAS recipients, ordinary landlords, accidental landlords, private renters of various incomes, a representative of a REIT, developers and try to get the full picture of what's happening. Maybe he has done that but it doesn't seem like it.

He's lacking a cohesive multi-pronged approach with different ideas as outlined by The Conductor in the 2015 thread & seems to like to put the blame on different people at different times. One day it's greedy landlords, next day it's greedy developers.

Jaketherake

I've been experimenting with putting my properties on air b&b and its been working out quite well.
I think Minister Kelly has pushed me to moving them all to air b&b now.
Only way to keep his grubby hands off them.
Ive seen several friends get out of the market altogether, and others planning their exit now.
Ive also seen friends who were planning to increase their investments decide that its not worth it, so those investments wont be going ahead.
Also, out of all of the landlords I know, there is not one who is not putting the rent up to the market rate at their first opportunity now.

And, to add to the carnage, most landlords actually didnt increase the rent every year if the tenant stayed. Now they will be making sure they increase it to the max every single year, regardless of whether its a good tenant or bad tenant.

Well done Kelly. You are a disgrace. I think that this might probably be a clever tactic by Kelly to actually increase rents. Afterall the government gets 60% of any increase, possibly more.

How about minister Kelly, you have the government build their own houses and then you can control who you let in and how much you charge for rent instead of trying to steal control of other peoples assets.

athtrasna

Jaketherake wrote: »

I've been experimenting with putting my properties on air b&b and its been working out quite well.
I think Minister Kelly has pushed me to moving them all to air b&b now.
Only way to keep his grubby hands off them.
Ive seen several friends get out of the market altogether, and others planning their exit now.
Ive also seen friends who were planning to increase their investments decide that its not worth it, so those investments wont be going ahead.
Also, out of all of the landlords I know, there is not one who is not putting the rent up to the market rate at their first opportunity now.

And, to add to the carnage, most landlords actually didnt increase the rent every year if the tenant stayed. Now they will be making sure they increase it to the max every single year, regardless of whether its a good tenant or bad tenant.

Well done Kelly. You are a disgrace. I think that this might probably be a clever tactic by Kelly to actually increase rents. Afterall the government gets 60% of any increase, possibly more.

How about minister Kelly, you have the government build their own houses and then you can control who you let in and how much you charge for rent instead of trying to steal control of other peoples assets.

What are you gaining from Air BnB? Income is taxable and you're giving them a cut?

Jaketherake

athtrasna wrote: »

What are you gaining from Air BnB? Income is taxable and you're giving them a cut?

Higher price, more control, instant payment and cleaning every visit.
Overall apartments stay in tip top condidtion.
You have a fair bit of vacant times scattered around the year but still I make more money this way and its a much more professional setup.
Works fine for apartments. Havent tried it with a house yet.
No rubbish about notice periods, rent allowance, rent control, PRTB and all sorts of other red tape.

I have to give the taxman over half in tax anyway, even if i rent. No interest to claim anyway and furniture etc is much better looked after. And if there is damage it comes out straight away. Not to mention no issues with rent either. Its always paid straight away.

Only problem is there is a little more management needed but i have someone who does that for me.

Angry bird

Jaketherake wrote: »

How about minister Kelly, you have the government build their own houses and then you can control who you let in and how much you charge for rent instead of trying to steal control of other peoples assets.

This. The policy from the last 20 years of the market providing social housing is an utter failure and will continue to be an utter failure resulting in increasing homelessness and public hand wringing from politicians blaming all and sundry except themselves and their disastrous policies.

athtrasna

Angry bird wrote: »

This. The policy from the last 20 years of the market providing social housing is an utter failure and will continue to be an utter failure resulting in increasing homelessness and public hand wringing from politicians blaming all and sundry except themselves and their disastrous policies.

So people blame the minister whose government have been in power four years as opposed to the ministers of the previous 16 years? A poison chalice was inherited.

The current social housing stock needs to be evaluated, the social house for life is a joke. Elderly people on their own in large houses while families are crammed into hotel rooms.

As for rent control. It would only push the majority of private landlords out of the market. Telling people what they can and can't do like that rarely brings successful results.

Riverireland

athtrasna wrote: »

So people blame the minister whose government have been in power four years as opposed to the ministers of the previous 16 years? A poison chalice was inherited.

The current social housing stock needs to be evaluated, the social house for life is a joke. Elderly people on their own in large houses while families are crammed into hotel rooms.

As for rent control. It would only push the majority of private landlords out of the market. Telling people what they can and can't do like that rarely brings successful results.

4 years is quite a long time. I'm afraid that the day of blaming the previous government has passed its sell by date. Any administration that is content to reside over the debacle that is the current housing situation is morally bankrupt and economically incompetent.

Angry bird

athtrasna wrote: »

So people blame the minister whose government have been in power four years as opposed to the ministers of the previous 16 years? A poison chalice was inherited.

The current social housing stock needs to be evaluated, the social house for life is a joke. Elderly people on their own in large houses while families are crammed into hotel rooms.

As for rent control. It would only push the majority of private landlords out of the market. Telling people what they can and can't do like that rarely brings successful results.

Yes, as I said the last 20 years, at least half of which when the country was awash with money. Kelly's whinging about all and sundry, when he is the Minister in charge is pathetic in my view. He's not paid to whinge, he's paid to get things done so what's stopping him?

I Am The Law

Angry bird wrote: »

Yes, as I said the last 20 years, at least half of which when the country was awash with money. Kelly's whinging about all and sundry, when he is the Minister in charge is pathetic in my view. He's not paid to whinge, he's paid to get things done so what's stopping him?

Quote from yesterdays article,

"I've never had a row with Michael Noonan in my life. He will verify the same thing. I've never had an angry word with the man in my life. So it's complete and utter rubbish," he said.

If he truly believes in his policy then he should be arguing his point at cabinet, up to and including leaving government. But will he.............?

Full Article

beauf

athtrasna wrote: »

...Elderly people on their own in large houses while families are crammed into hotel rooms. ...

Why stop at houses, why not re-distribute all other forms of wealth while you're at it. But where's the incentive to do anything if the Govt will just take it off you. Theres a balance to be struck certainly. But asking people to invest in property while taking it off them seems a bit of mixed message.

athtrasna

beauf wrote: »

Why stop at houses, why not re-distribute all other forms of wealth while you're at it. But where's the incentive to do anything if the Govt will just take it off you. Theres a balance to be struck certainly. But asking people to invest in property while taking it off them seems a bit of mixed message.

I was speaking about local authority housing. My comment was in context, your response is not.

beauf

My bad. I've never heard of local authorities following a policy of putting older people in big houses. I assumed it was a typo.

L1011

Some media reports claim FG offered something along the lines of "rent surety for existing rent supplement tenants" only.

Unless they were going to guarantee to pay any rent increases (in which case landlords for RA tenants would make hay), I can't see how this would be legal let alone practical.

athtrasna

beauf wrote: »

My bad. I've never heard of local authorities following a policy of putting older people in big houses. I assumed it was a typo.

There's currently a social house for life policy. Family with three kids get a house, kids grow up and move away, partner dies. Single older person in a family sized house. There are a lot of these across the various councils and this is something that needs to be addressed.

athtrasna

athtrasna wrote: »

The current social housing stock needs to be evaluated, the social house for life is a joke. Elderly people on their own in large houses while families are crammed into hotel rooms.

There is another side to the coin also though. People have to take some personal responsibility and not automatically expect the government to house them and their families regardless.

For a start people need to stop having children until they can afford it (this may be never for some people) rather than expecting the government to fund their upbringing and house them. Now not every child is planned etc but when you see a family of 4 living in a hotel room I ask myself why did that person have 3 kids when they didn't have a job or own their own house bought with their own money.

If I can't afford rent and/or was out of a job I'd be living at home and living there until such a time as I could afford to pay for my own place again. I would not be even dreaming of having a child never mind children.

An awful lot of people on the housing list or in council houses with their kids should be living at home and should have never had kids in the first place imo, this would massively reduce the need for housing families.