Why a rental crisis now?

bigpink

People couldnt rent out places 3 years ago

jetfiremuck

Simple really. All the BS that went on with " talk to your landlord" spiel that went on . The gov created the sense that rents were too high. Landlords did reduce for the most part.....as in those who could. The rest sold and got out of the market.

Slydice

Dunno..

Mod note:
(Links to graphs detailing long term mortgage default rates by different categories- alongside respective repossession rates)
Slydice- you put a lot of work into those graphs- there is no need to be coy when linking back to them.

newacc2015

We havent built anything in Dublin in the last few years. Yet have no one of the most rapidly increasing population in Europe. Plus the Government is handing out english language student visas like no tomorrow(there is roughly 10-15k students who werent here 3/4 years) with recession in Brazil this will only get worse.

bigpink

True look at Limerick its like little India now

who_ru

bigpink wrote: »

True look at Limerick its like little India now

Spoke to an estate agent in Limerick yesterday who told me that there has been one housing estate built in the Raheen/Dooradyle area in the last 6 years. ONE!

I looked on daft recently and there were 21 2 bed apts to rent in the entire city.

Govt policy of doing absolutely nothing to solve the urban planning problems in this country has brought us to where we are. Remember this when you vote.

jay0109

Google, Facebook, Air BnB etc all added how many jobs in the past 5 years....vast majority to Europeans brought into Dublin. All in need of accomm

the dark phantom

Not enough building in areas where people want to live. An Taisce and An Bord Pleanala are the cause of lots of it.

riclad

The economy is improving,
There,s very little building doing on.
Builders say they cant make a good profit .
In the boom some investors bought land at very high prices ,
maybe they are waiting for house prices to go up.
There,s very little building going on by the councils .
1000,s of houses were built by councils in the 60,s and the 70s
The government have said they intend to build 20 thousand house,s ,
In the next few years .

Atlantic Dawn

Nothing was built in places where people actually wanted to live, speculators bought and left land in the areas people wanted to live and these people went bust, currently there's not enough profit to build a new house and sell it at an affordable price in these areas. It's all good.

stateofflux

It will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Homelessness will become a very serious crisis this winter and into next year.

JustTheOne

There is plenty of houses outside of Dublin people who are receiving rent allowance can move into but wont.

Loads of working people had to move outside of Dublin where they can afford.

People are too fussy.

A lot of stories I are single mothers with kids receiving rent allowance but wont move outside of Dublin.

You cant be picky when receiving money for free to pay your rent.

Seen a couple today in the media unemployed and receiving 950 a month and are afraid they will become homeless.

caff

the dark phantom wrote: »

Not enough building in areas where people want to live. An Taisce and An Bord Pleanala are the cause of lots of it.

Think its more the land bank owners not willing to accept loses and sitting on land waiting for the value to go up. Plenty of empty lots around the city empty and fenced up. No sign of any move to build on them. Nothing to do with bord pleanala or an taisce, just someone who can afford to wait at the expense of people looking for places to live. So social good or private property, which is more important to people?

CramCycle

Modern mobile homes are far more luxiourous than most of the places I rented when I first moved to Dublin.

Portakabins on the other hand are virtually death traps or financial black holes in terms of heating and retrofitting.

If I knew then what I knew now I would have bought a site when I first came here and put a decent mobile on it. People who look down on mobiles haven't seen the inside of a modern one.

Atlantic Dawn

stateofflux wrote: »

It will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Homelessness will become a very serious crisis this winter and into next year.

What I am confused with is if there's an all out crisis where no houses can be found for the homeless in this entire country how can they invite hundreds of refugees in to the country and find them instant accommodation, do they book through a different agent or use different unmarked cash or how does that fast track process work? Are they black ops houses that they have set aside from the banks that they can use for undercover missions?

JustTheOne

CramCycle wrote: »

Modern mobile homes are far more luxiourous than most of the places I rented when I first moved to Dublin.

Portakabins on the other hand are virtually death traps or financial black holes in terms of heating and retrofitting.

If I knew then what I knew now I would have bought a site when I first came here and put a decent mobile on it. People who look down on mobiles haven't seen the inside of a modern one.

The modular houses are far from portakabins.

Have you seen them? Their nicer than a 3
Bedroom house. Very nice.

http://www.thejournal.ie/modular-housing-christmas-dublin-2401473-Oct2015/

JustTheOne

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

What I am confused with is if there's an all out crisis where no houses can be found for the homeless in this entire country how can they invite hundreds of refugees in to the country and find them instant accommodation, do they book through a different agent or use different unmarked cash or how does that fast track process work? Are they black ops houses that they have set aside from the banks that they can use for undercover missions?

There is 1000s of properties available down the country but as I said people wont move out of Dublin.

JustTheOne

There is actually a bigger homeless crisis in the UK.

CramCycle

JustTheOne wrote: »

The modular houses are far from portakabins.

Have you seen them? Their nicer than a 3
Bedroom house. Very nice.

http://www.thejournal.ie/modular-housing-christmas-dublin-2401473-Oct2015/

I hadn't, just replying to a poster who said Portakabins. Why are they temporary? Can't see why they wouldn't be permanent.

CollyFlower

Some people are too fussy, if you're unemployed you should be greatful for a council home outside Dublin, forgot family ties, think others, think of the tax payers who keep you in Dublin! working people should be protisied,

Atlantic Dawn

CollyFlower wrote: »

Some people are too fussy, if you're unemployed you should be greatful for a council home outside Dublin, forgot family ties, think others, think of the tax payers who keep you in Dublin! working people should be protisied,

This is exactly where it should be, if your homeless and unemployed and then offered a house anywhere in Ireland and don't accept it you should be put to the back of the list whether you have kids or not, your clearly a freeloader.

JustTheOne

Wanderer78 wrote: »

think about it now, why are we opting for these types of homes and simply not building actual homes?

Money. It doesn't grow on trees as some political parties would have you believe.

ger664

riclad wrote: »

The government have said they intend to build 20 thousand house,s ,
In the next few years .

We need closer to 80,000 units.

Sierra Oscar

JustTheOne wrote: »

Money. It doesn't grow on trees as some political parties would have you believe.

Minister Alan Kelly has stated that modular homes will cost up to €100,000. They aren't exactly cheap.

Meanwhile the Government has allowed NAMA to firesale thousands of residential units across the capital in recent years. These are being snatched up by vulture funds, with many units being purposefully kept off the market. NAMA was supposed to have a social dividend, but because the Government wants to shut it down quicker than planned in an effort to achieve a cheap publicity stunt management are being forced to flog off countless units which could be put to better use.

JustTheOne wrote: »

For who?

There is rapid population growth forecast for Dublin.

That's what happens when the Government plans the entire economic recovery around the capital. People move there in search of jobs.

ger664

JustTheOne wrote: »

For who?

I dont know but I assume that these guys have a fair handle on it

https://www.esri.ie/pubs/RN20140203.pdf

FrStone

ger664 wrote: »

We need closer to 80,000 units.

Yep, ERSI are saying we need 20,000 a year just to keep treading water. In other words that figure doesn't include extra houses being built to cope with the lack of houses built in the past number of years...

It's only going to get worse. We are not building anywhere enough houses.

JustTheOne

FrStone wrote: »

Yep, ERSI are saying we need 20,000 a year just to keep treading water. In other words that figure doesn't include extra houses being built to cope with the lack of houses built in the past number of years...

It's only going to get worse. We are not building anywhere enough houses.

In fairness there was nothing built between 2007 and 2012.

The planning logistics financing red tape it takes to build houses is only getting sorted now.

Id agree there is too much red tape which
hampered housing development.

But look what happend when we built loads of houses during the boom?

Do we want to go back down that road?

ger664

JustTheOne wrote: »

In fairness there was nothing built between 2007 and 2012.

The planning logistics financing red tape it takes to build houses is only getting sorted now.

Id agree there is too much red tape which
hampered housing development.

But look what happend when we built loads of houses during the boom?

Do we want to go back down that road?

I agree but NAMA and the Govt/Councils have access to most of the unoccupied stock in the country. However there seems to be no willingness to refurbish and bring them into the market for social housing.

the_syco

ger664 wrote: »

I agree but NAMA and the Govt/Councils have access to most of the unoccupied stock in the country. However there seems to be no willingness to refurbish and bring them into the market for social housing.

NAMA's job is to sell the houses and get money back. Giving them away doesn't get the money back. And buying from Peter to give money Paul won't help.

The Randy Riverbeast

People's investments not making them money isn't a problem, people struggling to find somewhere to live is.

The_Conductor

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

People's investments not making them money isn't a problem, people struggling to find somewhere to live is.

However- if government policy is to crucify the selfsame private sector to whom it has outsourced its obligation to house the people of Ireland- something is going to give- and that give- is no new houses are entering the rental market- year on year the gross number of units registered with the PRTB as under lease in Ireland- has fallen for each of the preceding 3 years- as landlords exit the market.

Government policy and regulation- has been scattergun at best- without a coherent tying together of the various strategies.

myshirt

What viable, practical and actionable recommendations are being put forward to solve this thing?

Does anyone have the answers and can they give Alan Kelly a call? What can be done today, what needs to be done tomorrow, and what do we need to focus on getting done within 12 months?

CramCycle

I certainly would not allow block social housing. Too late now but the best plan would have been to finish unused estates. Have between 10 and 20 percent as social housing but that the social housing would be intermingled eg every 5th house would be social housing rather than the inevitable ghetto style estates that eventually grow out of block social housing.

Just my opinion now, successive governments though have the typical poor management style of put all my issues in one area and we won't think about the issues it eventually brings.

myshirt

I strongly, strongly believe that where suitable, an absolute and determined preference should be had for housing these persons in the most affluent areas in Dublin as is possible. Redress the balance of social inequality somewhat.

It is utterly abhorrent that political influence has won out in the choosing of the current modular sites. I will personally making enquiries as to what can be done. Seriously and genuinely believe as much as possible the sites should be south of the liffey and bang right into the heart of more affluent areas.

Eugene Norman

ger664 wrote: »

I dont know but I assume that these guys have a fair handle on it

https://www.esri.ie/pubs/RN20140203.pdf

Yes. They've never been wrong before.

Eugene Norman

JustTheOne wrote: »

In fairness there was nothing built between 2007 and 2012.

The planning logistics financing red tape it takes to build houses is only getting sorted now.

Id agree there is too much red tape which
hampered housing development.

But look what happend when we built loads of houses during the boom?

Do we want to go back down that road?

Apparently we didn't build enough houses during the boom. As opposed to having too much credit which is a different thing. It wasn't the number of houses built that accelerated prices.

That said 2-3 years ago we were all ghost estates and assumed we were in a generational housing collapse. Even housing in Dublin was been torn down. Let's see just how accurate the esri is this time.

FrStone

The_Conductor wrote: »

However- if government policy is to crucify the selfsame private sector to whom it has outsourced its obligation to house the people of Ireland- something is going to give- and that give- is no new houses are entering the rental market- year on year the gross number of units registered with the PRTB as under lease in Ireland- has fallen for each of the preceding 3 years- as landlords exit the market.

Government policy and regulation- has been scattergun at best- without a coherent tying together of the various strategies.

Well I think there should be very little help for the one or two property landlord...

In his budget speech, Michael Noonan mentioned the need for a professionalisation of the rental sector. If we encourage large rental companies in to the country we will increase the quality and standard of rental housing.

The_Conductor

FrStone wrote: »

Well I think there should be very little help for the one or two property landlord...

In his budget speech, Michael Noonan mentioned the need for a professionalisation of the rental sector. If we encourage large rental companies in to the country we will increase the quality and standard of rental housing.

A massive assistance for most of those letting a single unit (or even two)- would be to allow rental income be offset against rental outgoings. A significant number of those with 1-2 properties- are letting because their circumstances have changed- however, because of the debt associated with house no.1 are unable to borrow to buy elsewhere- and so- are renting elsewhere.

Simply allowing rental income be offset against rental outgoings- before determination of taxable rental income (if any)- would be a massive help for most of those letting a single unit.

Once upon a time this was allowed.

FrStone

The_Conductor wrote: »

A massive assistance for most of those letting a single unit (or even two)- would be to allow rental income be offset against rental outgoings. A significant number of those with 1-2 properties- are letting because their circumstances have changed- however, because of the debt associated with house no.1 are unable to borrow to buy elsewhere- and so- are renting elsewhere.

Simply allowing rental income be offset against rental outgoings- before determination of taxable rental income (if any)- would be a massive help for most of those letting a single unit.

Once upon a time this was allowed.

Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.

A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.

JustTheOne

CramCycle wrote: »

I certainly would not allow block social housing. Too late now but the best plan would have been to finish unused estates. Have between 10 and 20 percent as social housing but that the social housing would be intermingled eg every 5th house would be social housing rather than the inevitable ghetto style estates that eventually grow out of block social housing.

Just my opinion now, successive governments though have the typical poor management style of put all my issues in one area and we won't think about the issues it eventually brings.

Please tell me how that fair on people working hard in that estate to pay a mortgage when they see someone handed the exact same house for free?

If ever there was an incentive to say youre homeless and not bother working.

The_Conductor

FrStone wrote: »

Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.

A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.

Large rental companies- incorporated as companies- get 100% of their costs allowed against rental income- private landlords do not. There is not a level playing field.

The point I was making- specifically relating to those who have found themselves letting their sole property through economic necessity (i.e. they've had to move for work)- and find themselves having to rent elsewhere- is that they are effectively being taxed on the double- and the fairer approach would be to allow rental outgoings be offset against rental income........

As for whether or not we should be encouraging small landlords- providing they are compliant with the legislation (the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act) and regulation (the PRTB etc)- there should be no reason why a private landlord should be viewed any differently than any other landlord. Where they are not compliant- or indeed, the flipside of the coin- where a tenant is not compliant- they should be pursued to the full extent of the law by the PRTB- with simplified and fast-track procedures available to both landlords and tenants, to resolve issues that arise. Also- the database of adjudications- should be publicised and any future prospective landlords or tenants- use it as a yardstick to judge whether or not to do business with one another.

jim-mcdee

newacc2015 wrote: »

We havent built anything in Dublin in the last few years. Yet have no one of the most rapidly increasing population in Europe. Plus the Government is handing out english language student visas like no tomorrow(there is roughly 10-15k students who werent here 3/4 years) with recession in Brazil this will only get worse.

Actually your are incorrect about the student visas. There were there 5-6 years ago. But nobody noticed. In fact they were propping up the rental market in Dublin which would have practically collapsed without them around 2010/2011.

jim-mcdee

FrStone wrote: »

Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.

A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.

I'll tell you why. The rents in Berlin have skyrocket in recent years. Why? American funds went in and purchased apartment blocks in the dozens 5-10 years ago when they were cheap as chips. They purchased with a strategy. Now comes the rent hikes. If you have 80-90% of the rental stock controlled by a few fund managers, they control the rents of an entire city. This is a simple explanation of course, but you get the idea. That is why small investors are important in the market. Also, do not forget, small investors are purchasing buildings out of income that was already taxed. Then their investment is taxed. You can only tax people so much.

CramCycle

JustTheOne wrote: »

Please tell me how that fair on people working hard in that estate to pay a mortgage when they see someone handed the exact same house for free?

If ever there was an incentive to say youre homeless and not bother working.

First of all, they won't see it, it will be random and intermingled, with legal requirements for the developer or auctioneer to never disclose the number, name or location. You won't know its unfair and the developer will ahve accounted this into his development costs.

So your answer for those who cannot afford to rent is to leave them homeless?

Forming what will essentially become ghettos, has always lead to increase in crime rates, lowering of incomes and lowering of educational standards. They are microcosms that show off the perfect poverty trap.

Doing what they have done in some parts of Australia, where housing development requires some social housing, it cannot be in a block, ie it has to be intermingled, has shown to improve the life quality of those housed, to the point there families do better in schools and in the long run are more productive to the economy.

The block social housing will also have people who were not originally from an impoverished background but their kids will fall into that trap by force of social pressures and it will in fact make things worse for the area, the people and their children.

My idea would hopefully over time bring people out of that trap. It may not be fair to me who worked hard for my rent or mortgage but I am not so naive as to want to encourage ghetto style communities and increase crime rates, lower educational levels and generally cost the economy more over time.

jim-mcdee

CramCycle wrote: »

First of all, they won't see it, it will be random and intermingled, with legal requirements for the developer or auctioneer to never disclose the number, name or location. You won't know its unfair and the developer will ahve accounted this into his development costs.

So your answer for those who cannot afford to rent is to leave them homeless?

Forming what will essentially become ghettos, has always lead to increase in crime rates, lowering of incomes and lowering of educational standards. They are microcosms that show off the perfect poverty trap.

Doing what they have done in some parts of Australia, where housing development requires some social housing, it cannot be in a block, ie it has to be intermingled, has shown to improve the life quality of those housed, to the point there families do better in schools and in the long run are more productive to the economy.

The block social housing will also have people who were not originally from an impoverished background but their kids will fall into that trap by force of social pressures and it will in fact make things worse for the area, the people and their children.

My idea would hopefully over time bring people out of that trap. It may not be fair to me who worked hard for my rent or mortgage but I am not so naive as to want to encourage ghetto style communities and increase crime rates, lower educational levels and generally cost the economy more over time.

Show me 10 houses and without telling me I would pick out the one that was given for free to unemployed. In my opinion, there should be nobody homeless. There are plenty of vacant flats and houses for rent around the country, only a bus ride away. It is all down to choice. People choose to be homeless. Let them at it.

allibastor

I live down the Midlands in laois and houses are becoming very hard to rent.

When I moved up 6 years ago I remember seeing something like -1200+ houses for sale and about 1000+ for rent.

There is now something like 500 for sale, but prices have seemingly gone up by about 30% and rentals have gone up by nearly 40% in many places, with rental space available at 38 houses.

It is shocking but there seems to be a big increase in Non-nationals living in the area, Maybe some have moved out of the capital if they were not able to afford rent there?

The_Conductor

FrStone wrote: »

Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.

A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.

Large rental companies are allowed offset all of the financial costs- not just 75% of mortgage costs- against tax- its not a level playing field.

The reason for helping the person with one home who has to let it out and live elsewhere for work or family reasons- is they are not allowed sell it if it has negative equity associated with it- unless they can somehow clear the negative equity- and they are also not allowed to borrow towards a different residence to live in. The alternate to helping them- is to allow another large cohort of property default. The central bank indicates this is in the region of 110-115k properties. However, pushing the banks to repossess them- wouldn't achieve anything- other than crystalising the negative equity- and as they are tenanted already- it also wouldn't do anything whatsoever for supply.

FrStone

FrStone wrote: »

Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.

Who is the "we"? Why should we not encourage people to invest in a property or two as an investment if they want to? Once they comply with the rules of letting I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be encouraged.

FrStone wrote: »

A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.

100% of the mortgage should be tax deductible not this nonsense about 75% of the interest. If LL's even those with one or two properties were able to operate it like a proper business then it would only benefit the tenants.

FrStone

jim-mcdee wrote: »

I'll tell you why. The rents in Berlin have skyrocket in recent years. Why? American funds went in and purchased apartment blocks in the dozens 5-10 years ago when they were cheap as chips. They purchased with a strategy. Now comes the rent hikes. If you have 80-90% of the rental stock controlled by a few fund managers, they control the rents of an entire city. This is a simple explanation of course, but you get the idea. That is why small investors are important in the market. Also, do not forget, small investors are purchasing buildings out of income that was already taxed. Then their investment is taxed. You can only tax people so much.

Do they not have rent controls in Germany?

L1011

FrStone wrote: »

Do they not have rent controls in Germany?

They do. 20% over 3 years rolling maximum allowed as well as similar rules to us on market matching.

FrStone

The_Conductor wrote: »

Large rental companies- incorporated as companies- get 100% of their costs allowed against rental income- private landlords do not. There is not a level playing field.

The point I was making- specifically relating to those who have found themselves letting their sole property through economic necessity (i.e. they've had to move for work)- and find themselves having to rent elsewhere- is that they are effectively being taxed on the double- and the fairer approach would be to allow rental outgoings be offset against rental income........

As for whether or not we should be encouraging small landlords- providing they are compliant with the legislation (the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act) and regulation (the PRTB etc)- there should be no reason why a private landlord should be viewed any differently than any other landlord. Where they are not compliant- or indeed, the flipside of the coin- where a tenant is not compliant- they should be pursued to the full extent of the law by the PRTB- with simplified and fast-track procedures available to both landlords and tenants, to resolve issues that arise. Also- the database of adjudications- should be publicised and any future prospective landlords or tenants- use it as a yardstick to judge whether or not to do business with one another.

It is possible for single landlords to put their property in a company and avail of these reliefs too. However most won't, as they know the extra tax bill involved in trying to sell a property owned by a company. However the rental companies so have to deal with these issues.

I also don't see why the tax payer should subsidise those who bought a second house and now have to rent it out to meet the mortgage payments. Generally this requirement for them to rent the property means they are under pressure to have no vacant periods. It is why we have so many cow boy landlords.