Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

Squall Leonhart

Varik wrote: »

Where's the 12% people are mentioning coming from, are they just going "less than 5" means 4 and over 3 years that 12%?

The 2 year still applies so, would it not be 8% over 4 years.

From what I heard on the radio this morning, the 2 year period reduces to 1 year in designated 'pressure zones' and rents can be increased annually at a max increase of 4%

senordingdong

It's starting to look less and less likely that the nuclear scenario of landlords leaving the market in droves will ever come about.

Varik

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

From what I heard on the radio this morning, the 2 year period reduces to 1 year in designated 'pressure zones' and rents can be increased annually at a max increase of 4%

Did you hear if that 1 year only applies to the existing properties who this is meant to apply to as new properties aren't affected so they'd still be 2 years.

senordingdong wrote: »

It's starting to look less and less likely that the nuclear scenario of landlords leaving the market in droves will ever come about.

Already happening, quick google would tell you that. Focus Ireland calling it almost as big an issue as rent increase for homelessness.

Add to that this is another major change to the rental market, whatever about leaving the market who'd be mad enough to enter it when there's as likely to be another change in 2017.

senordingdong

Varik wrote: »

Already happening, quick google would tell you that. Focus Ireland calling it almost as big an issue as rent increase for homelessness.

Add to that this is another major change to the rental market, whatever about leaving the market who'd be mad enough to enter it when there's as likely to be another change in 2017.

So many are leaving because it isn't financially viable/rewarding, and the solution is to tighten the reigns. Ofcourse.

matrim

senordingdong wrote: »

So many are leaving because it isn't financially viable/rewarding, and the solution is to tighten the reigns. Ofcourse.

If it's not financially viable at a time when when rents are at an all time high, and tenants are barely able to afford them, then when will it be viable?

If the government (or market or whatever) increase supply, rents will go down. So will it still be unviable or will it suddenly be that landlords will find a way to maximise their profit?

_Kaiser_

I had a skim through the report this morning so I stand to be corrected, but isn't there some exemption whereby housing that has been newly renovated or vacant is not affected by this.

I can see it now.. "oh I'm renovating the place so you have to go". Give it a bit of paint and maybe change the couch.. back on the market top price

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

AlanG

nhunter100 wrote: »

They work well in Berlin.

Only for people who are lucky enough to have a place. Rent controls lock out new arrivals and make it difficult to enter the market. Berlin is often quoted as a great rental market but that has changed dramatically in the last few years.

murphaph

nhunter100 wrote: »

They work well in Berlin.

Huge LOL from me. I live in Berlin. There is a massive housing shortage here and rent controlled apartments get little to no maintenance and coal fired heating on the 5th floor is both legal and not a seldom occurrence.

The ONLY solution to a housing shortage is to provide more housing.

This measure will do one thing for sure. It will remove more landlords from the market.

Lux23

murphaph wrote: »

It will remove more landlords from the market.

So hopefully that will mean more houses for sale? People keep saying this as if the house will just disappear.

listermint

matrim wrote: »

If it's not financially viable at a time when when rents are at an all time high, and tenants are barely able to afford them, then when will it be viable?

If the government (or market or whatever) increase supply, rents will go down. So will it still be unviable or will it suddenly be that landlords will find a way to maximise their profit?

This is the part i just dont get, and i have to really squint my eyes at it specifically when you have a moderate landlord going on about it.

Whatever about some of the less than desirable taxes on landlords earnings, it just doesnt add up that its not a business one can make money in specifically when some other investments are not performing anywhere near as well.

I mean with good tenants there isnt a huge downside if you are anyway on the ball.

Lux23

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I had a skim through the report this morning so I stand to be corrected, but isn't there some exemption whereby housing that has been newly renovated or vacant is not affected by this.

I can see it now.. "oh I'm renovating the place so you have to go". Give it a bit of paint and maybe change the couch.. back on the market top price

The property will have to been vacant so I can't imagine many landlords would get away with this.

Graham

Lux23 wrote: »

So hopefully that will mean more houses for sale? People keep saying this as if the house will just disappear.

People keep saying it because it is entirely relevant to anyone that's trying to rent one of the diminishing number of rental properties. Shifting supply from the rental market to the homeowner market does nothing to increase supply.

Graham

matrim wrote: »

If it's not financially viable at a time when when rents are at an all time high, and tenants are barely able to afford them, then when will it be viable?

If the government (or market or whatever) increase supply, rents will go down. So will it still be unviable or will it suddenly be that landlords will find a way to maximise their profit?

Landlords/investors are playing in the same property pool as everyone else. Lack of supply means the acquisition costs of the properties are very high for all.

An all-time-high rent is not an indicator of a landlords profit.

listermint

Graham wrote: »

Landlords/investors are playing in the same property pool as everyone else. Lack of supply means the acquisition costs of the properties are very high for all.

An all-time-high rent is not an indicator of a landlords profit.

*New Landlords / Investors.

Where is the cut off point so to speak do we really want the percentage of the housing stock to keep going into these hands?

The problems here are multifaceted i suppose everyone can agree. And the single lined approach the government have been taking so far is not helpful.

Pepe LeFrits

Lux23 wrote: »

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I had a skim through the report this morning so I stand to be corrected, but isn't there some exemption whereby housing that has been newly renovated or vacant is not affected by this.

I can see it now.. "oh I'm renovating the place so you have to go". Give it a bit of paint and maybe change the couch.. back on the market top price

The property will have to been vacant so I can't imagine many landlords would get away with this.

The landlords will just stop putting money into maintenance.

Rental controls will reduce the supply as tenants won't move as often, which will drive up the prices on properties that do become available. Existing landlords will then see that they are now getting way below market rate on their properties, so they won't put anything into maintaining or upgrading them. They have no incentive to keep the tenant in the place - the opposite really. If the tenant gets fed up with living in a dump and leaves, they can increase the rent.

seklly

In this country once a tenant gets the keys it's virtually impossible to remove them without having it drag on for months/years. One thing we need is proper eviction processes where a court order can be issued and the tenant can be quickly evicted by bailiffs (like the current UK process). This could help ease the supply problem.

Of course we also need to increase supply by building (up as well as out) with more long term planning/strategy from government.

Rent controls are not the answer in my opinion.

drunkmonkey

How long before some politican suggests decentralisation, the program should have never stopped, there's still plenty of unused land the government bought that's sitting idle.
Jobs out of Dublin is never going to go down well but something has to give.
Either that or a proper intercity train service, Limerick to Dublin in under an hour..it's only a little island it shouldn't be so hard to commute to anywhere on the island.

Zulu

More piece-meal knee jerk reactionary politics. Fu*kin awesome. This country never learns.

ford2600

Zulu wrote: »

More piece-meal knee jerk reactionary politics. Fu*kin awesome. This country never learns.

House for sale soon in Rochestown Cork if anyone is interested ðŸ˜

Seanachai

The_Conductor wrote: »

Restricting soaring rents- does absolutely nothing whatsoever for the housing crisis.

We do not urgently need restrictions on soaring rents (which are moderating in Dublin and Cork- as they are simply unaffordable at this stage)- we urgently need supply- vast quantities of supply- of a reasonable size, a good standard- and where people want to live. Its not rocket science- the issue is the complete and utter lack of supply. Rent controls will do precisely nothing to address this obvious issue- if anything it will simply mean landlords will be more likely to use whatever implements at their disposal to make tenancies as short as possible- in order to minimise the periods they are locked into rents that might be below market rates.

We need large quantities of new supply- where people want to live- and of a size and standard that people won't view them as 'starter homes' that will have to be sold and traded up to larger dwellings- if/when they start a family.

The Minister's proposals are a short-term, knee-jerk reaction- that is going to make him look like a folk hero to a small cohort of people- however, medium term the self same cohort of people are going to discover that its yet another case of 'be careful what you wish for, you just might get it'. Its not even the law of unintended consequences here- the consequences are so bloody obvious- yet, the political expediency of this short term measure mean that providing the Minister is not around to have to pick up the pieces when it all blows up- he will sell it as a success..........

Is there an election for FG leadership on the horizon that Mr. Coveney is angling for? Seems to me to be the only thing that makes sense..........

Is the lack of building down to resistance from the developers/builders, or are they waiting for the state to cough up the money for social housing? Surely they can't be sorting through red tape for this length of time?

Graham

listermint wrote: »

*New Landlords / Investors.

Where is the cut off point so to speak do we really want the percentage of the housing stock to keep going into these hands?

Yes. We absolutely need a percentage of new housing stock to meet the increasing demands of the rental sector.

The_Conductor

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How long before some politican suggests decentralisation, the program should have never stopped, there's still plenty of unused land the government bought that's sitting idle.
Jobs out of Dublin is never going to go down well but something has to give.
Either that or a proper intercity train service, Limerick to Dublin in under an hour..it's only a little island it shouldn't be so hard to commute to anywhere on the island.

Decentralisation of what though?
Over half the civil service is not based in Dublin (it was as high as 69% decentralised- however, its dropped back towards 58% decentralised in recent years).
Do you want to move the public facilities and amenities from Dublin elsewhere- or what have you in mind?

People have it in their heads that there is an unfair preponderance of public sector posts and/or amenities and facilities in the Dublin area- when if you actually enumerated it- its not actually the case.

The short and simple is- people want to live in our major urban areas.
Telling them they have to move to Carrick-on-Shannon (as an example) or elsewhere- because there are vacant housing units there- whereas there are none in West Dublin- simply doesn't address the problem- on the contrary, it creates whole new issues.

We need significant and ongoing delivery of reasonably sized, well built dwelling units in our major urban areas- and what would help towards this- is an immediate abolition of our restriction on building heights.

We need to ensure all future housing is of such a size and standard- that the whole concept of a 'starter home' is relegated to history- as we have far too many families stuck in wholly inappropriate housing as-is- without going and condemning yet another generation to the crap many of us have had to deal with.

Life is too short to keep making these self same mistakes, over and over, again and again.

Its one thing to be risk averse- its quite another thing to condemn an entire generation to live in inappropriate housing in the perpetual hope that they can one day aspire to selling their 'starter home' and buy somewhere that actually suits their needs.

drunkmonkey

Of Jobs, not just public service. Can't keep piling in jobs to Dublin and no where else.
Not everyone wants to live in dublin, I even dread driving up these days the roads can't handle the amount of cars..it's not bursting at the seams, it already burst, driving into cork is getting as bad, galway is a complete mess for traffic.
Sort out the dublin to Limerick rail line and you've opened up a lot of areas for housing commutable to Dublin daily.
Dublin is going to get more and more inaccessible and expensive regardless of what ministers do. More housing isn't the answer, then you need more roads. It's proper public transport outside of Dublin to Dublin.

murphaph

Lux23 wrote: »

So hopefully that will mean more houses for sale? People keep saying this as if the house will just disappear.

On average rental properties house more people than owner occupied ones because so many rentals are house shares involving couples. The 3 bed semi housing 3 couples gets sold to a family of four or even five and that's one less bed space and a family of five would likely be looking for a 4 bed anyway, which could be a house share of 8 people.

murphaph

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

The landlords will just stop putting money into maintenance.

Rental controls will reduce the supply as tenants won't move as often, which will drive up the prices on properties that do become available. Existing landlords will then see that they are now getting way below market rate on their properties, so they won't put anything into maintaining or upgrading them. They have no incentive to keep the tenant in the place - the opposite really. If the tenant gets fed up with living in a dump and leaves, they can increase the rent.

This is EXACTLY how it "works" in Berlin.

Baby01032012

Does anyone want to hazard s guess as to when this will take effect?

I have an apartment grossly under rental market rate however I can't increase until July 2017 due to the 2 year rule. So if this new rule comes into play am I forced to limit my increase to 4% per year even if its current under market rate by 30% +?

murphaph

This new build studio flat is perfectly legal in Germany. It would be illegal in Dublin (no dual aspect and too small). This sort of thing suits so many people that do not need much space and certainly don't need a dual aspect. Allowing developers to build such units would alleviate the situation. But instead we get more nonsense.

Zulu

ford2600 wrote: »

House for sale soon in Rochestown Cork if anyone is interested ðŸ˜

murphaph

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Does anyone want to hazard s guess as to when this will take effect?

I have an apartment grossly under rental market rate however I can't increase until July 2017 due to the 2 year rule. So if this new rule comes into play am I forced to limit my increase to 4% per year even if its current under market rate by 30% +?

I'm in the same boat with a property that was last reviewed in summer 2015. The law if changed affect landlords in a totally arbitrary way.