Can doing this one thing solve the homelessness problem in Ireland?

appfry

I posted this in another thread, but after thinking about it, it could be discussed in its own thread.

Just one change that would once and for all make all properties available to the state to rent and solve the homelessness problem.

I know for a fact (CWO sister) that there is no landlord who will not rent to SW if they were offered an attractive deal.
Always when they talk to a landlord about renting their property from them it fals down at the part where the landlord asks them if they will take full responsibility for the running of the property.
The SW are not allowed to make a deal on this.
The landlords biggest problem is that they are responsible for everything that goes wrong and the SW will wash their hands of it when it goes wrong.

Its easy to solve the housing crisis.
You offer the landlord the market rate for 5 or 10 years, but you also offer to take on full responsibility for the tenants and pay rent for that 5 or 10 years, whatever happens. So the landlord is happy to have it rented. He/She hands SW the keys and forgets about it for 5 or 10 years, being guaranteed that they get the property back after that period of time in the same state they handed it over in.
That one thing alone would ensure that SW could rent all the properties they ever needed.
Any landlord would got for that deal. But the sw are not allowed to deal on that basis.

intheclouds

appfry wrote: »

Any landlord would got for that deal.

Whats your basis for this claim?

appfry

Being told where the conversation always breaks down when trying to make the arrangement.
Also being told by every single person with a rental property who I know that they would be happy with a deal like that.
Maybe the numerous landlords on here will be able to say if this kind of deal would tempt them to rent their house to the SW.

Grolschevik

intheclouds wrote:

Whats your basis for this claim?

Presume it'd be based on the proposed idea of five to ten years hassle-free full market rate, with no maintenance costs or contact, and the guarantee that the property would be returned in the same condition as when it was originally let...

appfry

No reason why it wouldnt work for a shorter term either.

Potatoeman

Ask any management company, sw tenants always cause more trouble on average. People don't appreciate what they don't pay for. In the shortterm the landlord gets a steady tenant but in the long run can devalue their property.

hmmm

One of the reasons councils have stopped building social housing is because they don't want the headache of maintaining houses - the usual stories about people calling the council to get a lightbulb changed, some recipients wrecking the places. Outsourcing this hassle to the private landlord suits them - but it also means that landlords have become warier about renting to social recipients, because they are now the ones facing the burden.

I can't see councils rushing into singing up to maintaining private sector apartments.

Part of the problem I think is the unwillingness to tackle anti-social behaviour amongst social housing recipients. This results in everyone ducking and diving to try and avoid ending up with the bad tenants.

appfry

"Ask any management company, sw tenants always cause more trouble on average. People don't appreciate what they don't pay for. In the shortterm the landlord gets a steady tenant but in the long run can devalue their property."

I dont doubt it, but its still a way to solve the housing shortage and take homeless people of the homeless list. Individual LLs can decide if they are happy to go for the deal or not. But hardly any are going for the current deals on offer

intheclouds

appfry wrote: »

Being told where the conversation always breaks down when trying to make the arrangement.
Also being told by every single person with a rental property who I know that they would be happy with a deal like that.
Maybe the numerous landlords on here will be able to say if this kind of deal would tempt them to rent their house to the SW.

Dont think itd tempt me tbh. Id rather be in control of my own property.

intheclouds

appfry wrote: »

"Ask any management company, sw tenants always cause more trouble on average. People don't appreciate what they don't pay for. In the shortterm the landlord gets a steady tenant but in the long run can devalue their property."

I dont doubt it, but its still a way to solve the housing shortage and take homeless people of the homeless list. Individual LLs can decide if they are happy to go for the deal or not. But hardly any are going for the current deals on offer

If a development ends up being mostly rented as social housing, then the rents tend to fall as the area itself goes down a bit. This devalues the properties in it over the longer term.

Sleepy

There's one key problem with such a proposal: it assumes there's enough vacant property that's being held off the market to house all those renting through the SW system.

We have high rents in Dublin because there's not enough supply - for either private or public tenants.

A move that would make the Local Authority legally responsible for the behaviour of their tenants would no doubt be welcomed by landlords and should certainly increase the numbers of them prepared to let to social welfare tenants. While it may encourage more interest in buy-to-lets, the simple fact is that there aren't enough properties in the areas that people want to live in and that any increase in supply that came about as a result of it, would still take years to come on stream.

I'd also wonder if it wouldn't simply be cheaper for the councils to pay for the development of new housing themselves rather than trying to encourage more amateur landlords into the industry...

cruizer101

And where do you propose all the people who would have rented those houses live?

Besides schemes similar to what you propose already exist, my parents have a house they rent to the council for 10 years with a halfway rent review they are paid 80% of market value as council look after everything and you are guaranteed the rent no breaks. Now one issue is the council have ridiculously high standards but thats an discussion for another thread.

The housing problems in Ireland are based around one simple fact Lack of Supply

K_P

What you've described is basically the RAS scheme. It exists but isn't without its problems.

It's been successful at times of over-supply when landlords were happy to take a cut on the market rate of rent for a guaranteed income and having no maintenance or management to deal with. Much less successful in times like now with soaring rents and huge demand when landlords can be very picky about who they take on.

Also:

appfry wrote: »

That one thing alone would ensure that SW could rent all the properties they ever needed.

That assumes that SW / DSP has an endless budget for this. Which they don't.

Glass fused light

appfry wrote: »

Its easy to solve the housing crisis.
You offer the landlord the market rate for 5 or 10 years, but you also offer to take on full responsibility for the tenants and pay rent for that 5 or 10 years, whatever happens.
That one thing alone would ensure that SW could rent all the properties they ever needed.
Any landlord would got for that deal. But the sw are not allowed to deal on that basis.

hmmm wrote: »

One of the reasons councils have stopped building social housing is because they don't want the headache of maintaining houses -

Rent 1000pm x 12mths x 10 yrs. = eur 120,000
It's cheaper to build or buy social housing over the long term.
One of the considerations is that once the state provide a 5+ year home, they are saying that they dont expect that person or family to be have the social mobility to provide for themselves over the same period.

Graham

appfry wrote: »

Can doing this one thing solve the homelessness problem in Ireland?

No.

Shuffling limited housing stock between public and private rental markets does not make more housing or reduce the cost of housing.

If anything your proposal would exacerbate the problems already faced by private tenants.

appfry

Tell that to all of the people living in hotels.
Everything is ok folks. We'll look after you in the long term.
The problem exists now. It must be solved in the long term too, but it is now that needs a solution.

If someone from sw rang a landlord about an advertised property and said, yes i'll take that property for that price and i'll look after it and give it back to you at the end of the lease in the very same condition. I'll also guarantee you that I will keep it for the length of the lease and you will have no issues. And on top of that anyone I put into it, I will be responsible for removing them at my cost and will pay you the rent in full until i give the property back.

That would do a hell of a lot for a landlords peace of mind.

MrMorooka

Graham wrote: »

No.

Shuffling limited housing stock between public and private rental markets does not make more housing or reduce the cost of housing.

If anything your proposal would exacerbate the problems already faced by private tenants.

Exactly. If your deal is so good and landlords will all want to take it, that's property that is taken off the market for private, hard-working, tax-paying tenants. Why would you rent to them and deal with maintenance etc. when you can apparently just give it to the state and make money with zero effort?

It's a silly idea. The solution is more supply, of all sorts.

MrMorooka

appfry wrote: »

Tell that to all of the people living in hotels.
Everything is ok folks. We'll look after you in the long term.
The problem exists now. It must be solved in the long term too, but it is now that needs a solution.

If someone from sw rang a landlord about an advertised property and said, yes i'll take that property for that price and i'll look after it and give it back to you at the end of the lease in the very same condition. I'll also guarantee you that I will keep it for the length of the lease and you will have no issues. And on top of that anyone I put into it, I will be responsible for removing them at my cost and will pay you the rent in full until i give the property back.

That would do a hell of a lot for a landlords peace of mind.

where the hell does the money for this come from, in the short term, since you are so eager to begin this right now? Can the state really afford to house all these people, and pay market rent for years on end?

And like I said in the hypothetical post above, how am I as a private tenant meant to get the property when I am competing with this DSP worker's unlimited purse? You're just removing supply.

appfry

The money that is wasted paying for hotels would pay the rent.

Sounds to me like there is more worry about private renters perhaps having to pay more rent than about the plight of those families living in hotels. And thats fair enough. I would rather my rent was lower too. So lets call a spade a spade. Most people are only worried about themselves as usual.

There really is no excuse for SW not being able to acquire rental properties.
They could if they wanted to. They just have to take on the risk themselves. Instead they just try to force LLs into taking all the risks and then wonder why the majority of them would rather slit their wrists than rent to SW tenants.

If they want the properties, make a good deal to get them. Simple as that.

Graham

appfry wrote: »

Sounds to me like there is more worry about private renters perhaps having to pay more rent than about the plight of those families living in hotels. And thats fair enough. I would rather my rent was lower too. So lets call a spade a spade. Most people are only worried about themselves as usual.

I'll say it again because you conveniently ignored it last time.

Your proposal will not make more housing.
Your proposal will not make rent more affordable.
Your proposal is likely to result in some current private tenants moving into the homeless category.

AlanG

Bringing back bedsits would be the one thing that would make the biggest impact. There are a huge number of properties around the North inner city that are vacant because the owners cannot afford to convert them from bedsits. Many of the tenants were happy with the bedsits but because of a number of bad ones the gov decided to ban them and remove housing for a large cohort (mostly single men) of society. I knew a number of elderly bachelors who loved living in the bedsits because they could afford to live near the area they grew up in or lived most of their time since the moved up to Dublin. Most of these guys were brought up in homes with no running water so sharing a bathroom didn't bother them.

Graham

AlanG wrote: »

Bringing back bedsits would be the one thing that would make the biggest impact. There are a huge number of properties around the North inner city that are vacant because the owners cannot afford to convert them from bedsits. Many of the tenants were happy with the bedsits but because of a number of bad ones the gov decided to ban them and remove housing for a large cohort (mostly single men) of society.

+1

a perfect example of another well-intended action that had a fairly catastrophic effect on a specific section of our society.

Glass fused light

appfry wrote: »

There really is no excuse for SW not being able to acquire rental properties.
They could if they wanted to. They just have to take on the risk themselves. Instead they just try to force LLs into taking all the risks and then wonder why the majority of them would rather slit their wrists than rent to SW tenants.

If they want the properties, make a good deal to get them. Simple as that.

What is the risk the landlord is taking on and how do these apply to the people below?

1 can afford to pay rent and employed in well paying jobs
2 employed in low paying jobs and needs help paying rent
3 currently unemployed due to job loss and needs the state to pay the rent

If there are a limited number of properties what will the landlord want to outweigh the risk?

newacc2015

These quick fix solutions ignore the real problem which is lack of supply. Ireland has to be one of the only countries I know where the private sector gets the blame for all housing related problems. DCC and other councils need to get off their hole and build housing. Instead of blaming the private sector for not building housing

LLs dont want to rent to SW as getting payment from the councils is near impossible. I know a landlord who took on a homeless family with HAP. He was several months behind on his mortgage as the council werent releasing the payments. Only when he issued them with an eviction notice did the council finally pay up. Why would a landlord rent to a council assisted tenant when it might take 4/5 months for them to finally get a rent cheque?

A massive issue with councils is there idea of "market rent". They literally pull it out of their hole. They give 70/80% of the market rent on a long term lease. But the market rate is usually significantly below the real market rate.

Also no Landlord wants to commit to a tenant for 10 years. It is difficult to sell with a sitting tenant in Ireland.

Claw Hammer

appfry wrote: »

Tell that to all of the people living in hotels.
Everything is ok folks. We'll look after you in the long term.
The problem exists now. It must be solved in the long term too, but it is now that needs a solution.

If someone from sw rang a landlord about an advertised property and said, yes i'll take that property for that price and i'll look after it and give it back to you at the end of the lease in the very same condition. I'll also guarantee you that I will keep it for the length of the lease and you will have no issues. And on top of that anyone I put into it, I will be responsible for removing them at my cost and will pay you the rent in full until i give the property back.

That would do a hell of a lot for a landlords peace of mind.

It wouldn't do for any landlord's peace of mind other than in fantasy land. What government official would have authority to ring anyone in response to an advert and enter a binding contract to rent and repair a property which he hasn't even seen and which has not been checked as to suitability?
Any properties which any official body rent would have to meet certain standards as to condition and suitability and the negotiation of rent would have to be transparent so that it could be seen that there was value for money.
In order to make such a deal a valuers report and an engineers report on condition would be needed.

Gatling

Erica is that you

Kings Inns or bust

It's not just SW tenants that are facing significant issues. Personally if you've not worked for more than 36 months a (well decked out) shipping container in Co. Kerry should be beckoning.

rawn

Imagine the backlash from the middle/working class if suddenly the tax payer had to foot the bill for RA tenants missing payments and destroying properties!!

SW paying for this (through taxes) is a bad idea. Giving LL's more power to evict due to non-payments and to recoup losses from a tenant is a better idea.

Kings Inns or bust

rawn wrote: »

Imagine the backlash from the middle/working class if suddenly the tax payer had to foot the bill for RA tenants missing payments and destroying properties!!

SW paying for this (through taxes) is a bad idea. Giving LL's more power to evict due to non-payments and to recoup losses from a tenant is a better idea.

TBH we do it on council tenants so I'm not sure we've much backlash left in us to be honest.