Will rent controls effect the general quality of rentals in the long run

jamesthepeach

It's a chicken and egg situation.

If a landlord can't get market rent due to rent control is he going to spend anything over the bare minimum in either getting a property ready for letting or on maintenance.

For new lets to rent controlled properties which are below market rate I doubt people will be getting anything but the bare minimum when they rent a new place now too.

And in non rent controlled properties watch them all get increased now just in case the landlords get screwed over if those properties get designated Rpz.

I have spoken to a few different landlords effected by rent controls and this would seem to be the prevailing wisdom. Don't invest anymore money in a property that is already controlled at below market rate, because you have no way of getting that money invested back. In fact it will cost you more in the long run as now you are set to repair new items. Instead you should be stripping everything out and renting as close to unfurnished as possible. And for existing tenants just let them get on with it and do no painting etc that you would normally to to spruce it up every so often.

Rent control is always bad for everyone in the long run. We all will lose.

If a tenant pays below market rate it follows that when it all shakes out that they will be getting a below market rental.

What do people think?

Also what are the effects of rent control people have seen already?

myshirt

Landlords will always shop in bargaintown, rent controls or no rent controls.

Murrisk

If supply was greater and market rate was much lower and within rent controls and therefore market rent was being achieved, would landlords be more likely to put money into their property? Because in their mind, market rent was reached, a box ticked?

Sleeper12

It already is effecting the quality of some.

Zapperzy

jamesthepeach wrote: »

And in non rent controlled properties watch them all get increased now just in case the landlords get screwed over if those properties get designated Rpz.

In my area average rents for an average house in 2014 was around 500-650pm, this gradually raised to 750/800pm towards the end of 2016, in the last few months this has raised to 1400pm. This is in a galway commuter town so by no means a city, galway city is now a RPZ, it's only a matter of time before it spreads to the commuter towns. As a tenant this is scary stuff.

jamesthepeach

Murrisk wrote: »

If supply was greater and market rate was much lower and within rent controls and therefore market rent was being achieved, would landlords be more likely to put money into their property? Because in their mind, market rent was reached, a box ticked?

I would have normally kept it very well during a tenancy and then taken the opportunity between tenancues to make improvements, is new kitchen, bathroom, table, chairs, curtains, painting etc.
Whatever was needed and a bit more to add to the rental value of it when the next tenants were viewing.

No point anyone doing any of that now during or between tenacies because it won't effect the rental value at all. In fact the more you spruce it up and kitnit out the more to go wrong that you have to replace or fix now. And you won't make any of the cost of those things back off either ongoing tenants or new ones. Total waste of money.

wordofwarning

myshirt wrote: »

Landlords will always shop in bargaintown, rent controls or no rent controls.

So you think Kennedy Wilson or IRES charging €1300 for a 1 bed are shopping in Bargaintown?

A lot of smart landlords, know that if you buy quality it lasts. A German made Bosch lasts twice as long as a cheap British machine for marginally more. The problem is a lot of tenants don't respect other people's property. Sure it is not their property, why respect it? I know it seems like a generalisation, but the amount of students I have seen wreck furniture is ridiculous. I know in a house where a tenant bought a nail gun and decided to test it on the backdoor

There is little point spending €500-1000 on an amazing mattress, when tenants will wreck it. The amount of tenants, who either a) don't use a mattress protector or b) remove it is ridiculous. Some landlords have no choice but to buy €50 mattresses and dump them every year

As much as tenants moan about the quality of rental furnishings. I would hazard about 95-98% of tenants would not be willing to furnish a place themselves. I know of a house that was gutted and refurbished to an ultra high standard, nice area and would be worth around €650k. They could not get anyone to rent it at €2,400 for months as it was unfurnished.

Rent controls will affect the quality of housing. NYC rent controlled apartments are in bits as there is zero incentive for a landlord to keep them modern. If an apartment is rent controlled at 20% its market rate. There is no incentive for a landlord to paint it/put in new furniture as someone will take it

Lux23

The incentive might be to take care of your property so you can sell it on in later years. In the long run the only person suffering there is the landlord.

wordofwarning

wordofwarning wrote: »

So you think Kennedy Wilson or IRES charging ?1300 for a 1 bed are shopping in Bargaintown?

A lot of smart landlords, know that if you buy quality it lasts. A German made Bosch lasts twice as long as a cheap British machine for marginally more. The problem is a lot of tenants don't respect other people's property. Sure it is not their property, why respect it? I know it seems like a generalisation, but the amount of students I have seen wreck furniture is ridiculous. I know in a house where a tenant bought a nail gun and decided to test it on the backdoor

There is little point spending ?500-1000 on an amazing mattress, when tenants will wreck it. The amount of tenants, who either a) don't use a mattress protector or b) remove it is ridiculous. Some landlords have no choice but to buy ?50 mattresses and dump them every year

As much as tenants moan about the quality of rental furnishings. I would hazard about 95-98% of tenants would not be willing to furnish a place themselves. I know of a house that was gutted and refurbished to an ultra high standard, nice area and would be worth around ?650k. They could not get anyone to rent it at ?2,400 for months as it was unfurnished.

Rent controls will affect the quality of housing. NYC rent controlled apartments are in bits as there is zero incentive for a landlord to keep them modern. If an apartment is rent controlled at 20% its market rate. There is no incentive for a landlord to paint it/put in new furniture as someone will take it

Well equally who's gonna pay to furnish a house they could be kicked out of a year or two down the line and be stuck with a rake of furniture etc. that may not fit/go in the next place they go into?

jamesthepeach

Lux23 wrote: »

The incentive might be to take care of your property so you can sell it on in later years. In the long run the only person suffering there is the landlord.

You do take care of the property. It's the furnishings and decor that will be neglected, not the plumbing. I would hazard that most places are decorated just before sale anyway, so nothing new there. It just won't be done between or during tenancies anymore.

jamesthepeach

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well equally who's gonna pay to furnish a house they could be kicked out of a year or two down the line and be stuck with a rake of furniture etc. that may not fit/go in the next place they go into?

Probably anyone who plans to rent a house below market value.
Eg
Unfurnished for rent controlled below market rate eg €800. Furnished for rent controlled at €1000.

Murrisk

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I would have normally kept it very well during a tenancy and then taken the opportunity between tenancues to make improvements, is new kitchen, bathroom, table, chairs, curtains, painting etc.
Whatever was needed and a bit more to add to the rental value of it when the next tenants were viewing.

No point anyone doing any of that now during or between tenacies because it won't effect the rental value at all. In fact the more you spruce it up and kitnit out the more to go wrong that you have to replace or fix now. And you won't make any of the cost of those things back off either ongoing tenants or new ones. Total waste of money.

Right, but I don't see that as being linked to market rate. If market rate was much lower and you were getting market rate would it all then worth it? I don't see the link between work put into the property and the market rate. Either it's worth doing or it's not.

Graham

Murrisk wrote: »

I don't see the link between work put into the property and the market rate. Either it's worth doing or it's not.

Imagine you're a landlord and you have a house with a shabby but functional kitchen.

Would you

a) Spend 3,000 updating the kitchen to get 1,000/month in rent
b) Spend nothing on the kitchen to get 1,000/month in rent

jamesthepeach

Murrisk wrote: »

Right, but I don't see that as being linked to market rate. If market rate was much lower and you were getting market rate would it all then worth it? I don't see the link between work put into the property and the market rate. Either it's worth doing or it's not.

Say you were getting €800 for a property worth €1100 for the last couple of years because a you liked the tenant and b you are controlled anyway.

Let's say the tenant is moving out next week.

If you were to look for €1100 from the next tenant you would put a lot into it to attract that €1100 and hopefully attract a higher rent because you made it so attractive to renters.

Well now no matter what you do to it you can't get more than €800 for it, so why bother doing anything. Anyone who rents it knows they are getting a €300 discount so they'll take it whatever state it is in. And you would have a queue down the road of takers at that and can take your pick.

mrslancaster

myshirt wrote: »

Landlords will always shop in bargaintown, rent controls or no rent controls.

many LL's furnished properties with good quality furniture and appliances.

in future it looks like properties may be let with only the items required by regulation so basically unfurnished.

this is the norm in most countries so it may be the tenants who are shopping in bargaintown, rent controls or not

& IMO tenants in any new tenancy will have to pay at least 3 months deposit. it seems that its the good tenants & fair LL's that are being affected by the recent changes

Murrisk

Graham wrote: »

Imagine you're a landlord and you have a house with a shabby but functional kitchen.

Would you

a) Spend 3,000 updating the kitchen to get 1,000/month in rent
b) Spend nothing on the kitchen to get 1,000/month in rent

I think whatever the rental, don't splash out on furniture. Unless it's a luxury rents, there's no need. At some stage, supply will increase, market rent will drop and LLs will get the market rate. But that market rent will be lower than it is now. That's why I don't understand house upkeep in relation to market rate. Surely it's prudent to cost upkeep of the property based on an estimate of the lowest potential future market rent (which will obviously be somewhat guesswork). Not upkeeping because you can't charge the current sky-high market rent? Hmmm. At some stage it will be a tenant's market again. What happens to upkeep when there is a situation where the tenant is in a position to bargain you down?

jamesthepeach

Murrisk wrote: »

I think whatever the rental, don't splash out on furniture. Unless it's a luxury rents, there's no need. At some stage, supply will increase, market rent will drop and LLs will get the market rate. But that market rent will be lower than it is now. That's why I don't understand house upkeep in relation to market rate. Surely it's prudent to cost upkeep of the property based on an estimate of the lowest potential future market rent (which will obviously be somewhat guesswork). Not upkeeping because you can't charge the current sky-high market rent? Hmmm. At some stage it will be a tenant's market again. What happens to upkeep when there is a situation where the tenant is in a position to bargain you down?

The tenants in the controlled properties will not be moving if they can help it. Landlords cannot make them move. All of the cheap controlled properties will be taken be these static tenants and there will be even less supply for people looking for a rental. The only new rentals will be new to the market and cost a fortune and there will be few of them. Prices will increase.

The only thing that will bring prices down is an economic crash. Rent controls will only increase prices, unless you stay put forever in a nicely controlled property.

mrslancaster

Murrisk wrote: »

I think whatever the rental, don't splash out on furniture. At some stage, supply will increase, market rent will drop and LLs will get the market rate. But that market rent will be lower than it is now. That's why I don't understand house upkeep in relation to market rate. Surely it's prudent to cost upkeep of the property based on an estimate of the lowest potential future market rent (which will obviously be somewhat guesswork). Not upkeeping because you can't charge the current sky-high market rent? Hmmm.

afaik what is required is the repair & upkeep of the building & white goods. why would any LL furnish a property any more instead of just complying with regulations?

what other service provides 'extras' above what is required without charging a premium for it? the Ryanair model comes to mind, no frills just basic & anything else the user pays for.

if LL can't be paid for the service/goods supplied IMO they will stop providing it.

I wonder how much the private rental market in rpz areas will have changed by this time next year??

Murrisk

Personally, I don't expect a landlord to go above and beyond. Unfortunately for landlords in Ireland, furnished is the norm and will be hard to change. Not impossible though.

My point really is that at the moment, rents are a bit on the preposterous side due to lack of supply. Remember that they rose hugely before the controls came in. They won't remain this high forever and for a long time were much lower than they are currently, even with the new controls. So why would a landlord be struggling now when from 2010-2013, rents were much lower?

mrslancaster

Murrisk wrote: »

Personally, I don't expect a landlord to go above and beyond. Unfortunately for landlords in Ireland, furnished is the norm and will be hard to change. Not impossible though.

My point really is that at the moment, rents are a bit on the preposterous side due to lack of supply. Remember that they rose hugely before the controls came in. They won't remain this high forever and for a long time were much lower than they are currently, even with the new controls. So why would a landlord be struggling now when from 2010-2013, rents were much lower?

who said they weren't struggling before?

unfurnished & much bigger bond is the way its heading IMO & that's not great for tenants

runawaybishop

Murrisk wrote: »

Personally, I don't expect a landlord to go above and beyond. Unfortunately for landlords in Ireland, furnished is the norm and will be hard to change. Not impossible though.

My point really is that at the moment, rents are a bit on the preposterous side due to lack of supply. Remember that they rose hugely before the controls came in. They won't remain this high forever and for a long time were much lower than they are currently, even with the new controls. So why would a landlord be struggling now when from 2010-2013, rents were much lower?

They were struggling in 2010-12013 and a lot left the market. With rents being capped LLs can no longer gain back any previous losses and may still be operating at a loss, so they will exit the market in greater numbers. This rent cap and the previous 2 year review period were very shortsighted and basically populist nonsense.

rsynnott

wordofwarning wrote: »

So you think Kennedy Wilson or IRES charging €1300 for a 1 bed are shopping in Bargaintown?

A lot of smart landlords, know that if you buy quality it lasts. A German made Bosch lasts twice as long as a cheap British machine for marginally more. The problem is a lot of tenants don't respect other people's property. Sure it is not their property, why respect it? I know it seems like a generalisation, but the amount of students I have seen wreck furniture is ridiculous. I know in a house where a tenant bought a nail gun and decided to test it on the backdoor

Everywhere I ever rented had a cheap Indesit/Hotpoint washing machine. Predictably, these tended to break down (in one case it was broken when I moved in). Smart landlords may buy quality, but apparently smart landords are rare.

Graham

rsynnott wrote: »

Everywhere I ever rented had a cheap Indesit/Hotpoint washing machine. Predictably, these tended to break down (in one case it was broken when I moved in). Smart landlords may buy quality, but apparently smart landords are rare.

When you're faced with fitting a house with 4 or 5 appliances each costing 300 - 900 you too might decide it's appropriate to opt for the cheaper variations and stand to the repair/replacement costs.

Initial purchases are likely to be depreciated over 8 years! Many landlords offset repairs/replacements in full in the year the costs arise.

Murrisk

runawaybishop wrote: »

They were struggling in 2010-12013 and a lot left the market. With rents being capped LLs can no longer gain back any previous losses and may still be operating at a loss, so they will exit the market in greater numbers. This rent cap and the previous 2 year review period were very shortsighted and basically populist nonsense.

Aye, but rents are already eye-watering, how much higher could they go? As a short-term measure, controls were needed IMO. The rents some of my friends are paying for very average accommodation in not particularly great locations are shocking.

Samuel T. Cogley

There will be nothing long term about rent controls. They are IIRC time limited and any thing beyond the next 3 years or so will see the legislation challenged.

mrslancaster

rsynnott wrote: »

Everywhere I ever rented had a cheap Indesit/Hotpoint washing machine. Predictably, these tended to break down (in one case it was broken when I moved in). Smart landlords may buy quality, but apparently smart landords are rare.

well how nice it would be to have my home kitted out with top of the range appliances & furniture & then let someone else have the headache of replacing or repairing them when they break through careless usage...

it would be great to be able to phone someone & have anything that's wrong sorted at no cost whether it was a smart or not so smart landlord..!

people buying their own home & paying a huge mortgage do not have that luxury - they have high monthly bills & have to take care of all repairs or replacements as well.

don't get me wrong , people make those decisions freely but it gets very annoying when tenants have this victim or 'poor me' attitude. its very one sided IMO & i' m sorry we just didn't rent in a controlled area, it seems it would be a much better option all round, no worries except pay the monthly rent when its due, happy days

The_Conductor

myshirt wrote: »

Landlords will always shop in bargaintown, rent controls or no rent controls.

Why bother going to Bargaintown?
Just let a bare apartment/house (with the bare minimum of appliances, as specified under the Act), freshly paint it and specify it be returned in an identical manner- the same as in almost any other country.

There is plenty of demand for unfurnished dwellings- and, it minimises the number of things that a tenant will go chasing a landlord over.

If a tenant has to provide their own furniture and fixtures and fittings over and above the bare minimum- perhaps it might mean that far better care is taken of them- and the property as a whole?

Murrisk

Also, in exchange for paying a mortgage and maintenance, you are paying towards an asset. A renter just gets use of the house. Surely you can see the difference?

Samuel T. Cogley

By the way...

My Bargintown floor is still going strong after years and years so let's deal with the most important issue in this thread and not besmurch the good name of Ireland's (slightly pissed) answer to Ikea.

The_Conductor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

By the way...

My Bargintown floor is still going strong after years and years so let's deal with the most important issue in this thread and not besmurch the good name of Ireland's (slightly pissed) answer to Ikea.

In all fairness to Bargaintown- I've furniture from there (bookcases and bedside lockers) that have far outlasted their Ikea equivalents. Its cheap and cheerful- versus just 'cheap'......

Claw Hammer

Everywhere rent controls have come in, they have been a disaster. Landlords are now throwing out perfectly good tenants and selling properties. Others are reluctant to invest and will be for years to come. Some letting agents are finding that their workload per letting has increased massively as a result oif all the legislation.
The utter stupidity of it is mind boggling.

The_Conductor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Everywhere rent controls have come in, they have been a disaster. Landlords are now throwing out perfectly good tenants and selling properties. Others are reluctant to invest and will be for years to come. Some letting agents are finding that their workload per letting has increased massively as a result oif all the legislation.
The utter stupidity of it is mind boggling.

Going rate for letting agents has increased to 12.5% of gross rental income- in recognition of this (i.e. the letting agents gets a straight 1/8 of all rental income). Its getting damn pricey being a landlord.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Instead you should be stripping everything out and renting as close to unfurnished as possible.

GOOD! FANTASTIC! HURRAH!

This nonsense of furnished property needs to end asap. Ireland has to stop the trend of furnished property. If rent control is what it takes then I'm all for it.

Most landlords now already purchase the absolute cheapest furniture and appliances for their rental property. Some use the furniture you see abandoned by the side of the road.

A landlord should only be concerned about the structural integrity and upkeep of the property (Paint / Gas / Water / Pipes etc.. etc..). Nothing more, nothing less.

The tenant is then freed from the stress of having to look after someone elses furniture and appliances. The tenant is also free to purchase the items they want to have and use.

It affords great freedom to both parties and completely negates any fall out regarding furniture.

As for your original question.

Considering the broken state the rental market. I'd say yes, it will affect the general quality. But not in a good way.

testaccount123

jamesthepeach wrote: »

It's a chicken and egg situation.

If a landlord can't get market rent due to rent control

I really dont get this. Rents are at a historical high and have been rising hugely year on year yet we are supposed to believe landlords are all simultaneously renting well below market rates.

Also, if renting well below market rates wasnt an issue for all these landlords before the rent controls came in why is it suddenly an issue for them now?

I dont understand why if these landlords needed to increase the rent they didnt bother doing it while there were no restrictions on doing so?

No doubt some landlords will use these controls as an excuse to spend less on the maintenance of their properties.

Graham

testaccount123 wrote: »

I really dont get this. Rents are at a historical high and have been rising hugely year on year yet we are supposed to believe landlords are all simultaneously renting well below market rates.

I didn't see any suggestion all landlords are renting below market rate.

testaccount123

Graham wrote: »

I didn't see any suggestion all landlords are renting below market rate.

Its constantly suggested on here. Surely the issue only affects a tiny minority of landlords - those who didnt bother to keep their rents in line with market rates - making threads like this one redundant?

We'd be better off discussing if rising costs will affect landlords ability to maintain their properties.

Samuel T. Cogley

testaccount123 wrote: »

I really dont get this. Rents are at a historical high and have been rising hugely year on year yet we are supposed to believe landlords are all simultaneously renting well below market rates.

Some LL's are, others are happy to keep doing so. Other's like myself are happy to keep doing it for the exisitng customer but wonder why the feck I should do it for the next customer, with whom, I have no existing relationship and my fellow LL's who, perhaps, have not been so compliant with various regualtions are allowed to charge the going rate. All this becuase the government can't sort out social housing.

At the end of the day it's my investment - if the government was suggesting doing something like this to pensions there would be riots.

testaccount123 wrote: »

Also, if renting well below market rates wasnt an issue for all these landlords before the rent controls came in why is it suddenly an issue for them now?

You're conflating market rate and profitable rate. It's now just about profitable to be a LL on an indivdual unit. It shouldn't really be a mystery why it's a problem to do this at a loss, and why you might be a bit ticked off that you could not be doing it at a profit but you're suddenly prevented from doing it.

testaccount123 wrote: »

I dont understand why if these landlords needed to increase the rent they didnt bother doing it while there were no restrictions on doing so?

No doubt some landlords will use these controls as an excuse to spend less on the maintenance of their properties.

The restrictions were preceded by other restrictions and the increases have really picked up while they have been coming into force. Others, like a Imentioned above, were happy to do it for our current tenants but don't see why we should be forced to do it for people we don't know from Adam.

Samuel T. Cogley

testaccount123 wrote: »

Its constantly suggested on here. Surely the issue only affects a tiny minority of landlords - those who didnt bother to keep their rents in line with market rates - making threads like this one redundant?

We'd be better off discussing if rising costs will affect landlords ability to maintain their properties.

Surely we'd all be better off doing almost anything else than chatting on boards but there you go :pac:

The point is though that it was a tiny number but the number is growing.

The_Conductor

The only fair manner of operating at a discount to market rates in an RPZ is if some sort of a passporting system, associated with the tenant rather than the property, were put into place- where a tenant's good history in the rental sector could be recognised and rewarded by subsequent landlords- but there would be no commensurate obligation to offer preferential terms to a tenant who could not show as desirable a history to a prospective landlord?

Can't see that flying somehow.

Samuel T. Cogley

The other night I had to let my tenant know I was putting his rent up becuase of this RPZ - otherwise I would have left it alone. If I do leave it alone can I back date the increase? Kept menaing to ask - would prefer to leave it alone, they are fantastic tenants.

The_Conductor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Surely we'd all be better off doing almost anything else than chatting on boards but there you go :pac:

The point is though that it was a tiny number but the number is growing.

Its not a tiny number though-

There are over 700,000 living in rented accommodation in this country.
There are 174,000 landlords in this country.
36% of all landlords- are accidental landlords, who never intended on being a landlord in the first place. Over 14,000 of these- left the country during the downturn- letting their sole property to tenants.
49% of all landlords (about 85,500 landlords) only own a single property.
84% of all landlords (~145,000 landlords) own two or fewer properties.
93.1% of all landlords (~162,000 landlords) own three or fewer properties.
The average length of a residential tenancy in Ireland is- 3 years 9 months.
Over 45% of pre-existing tenancies have not had their rent reviewed in the last 24 months....... National rent increases (according to the RTB) in the 24 month period is just over 16% (rate of increase is actually slowing)- however, as of Q4 2016- the absolute rent levels are still below the height of the boom (denoted as Q3 2007).

The above is taken from a variety of sources- namely the RTB, the CSO, the Census Figures, Revenue figures- and a very interesting fact file on the Cooperative Housing website.

In short- there are tens of thousands of landlords out there- who only have a single property- which is currently being let at to a tenant at least 15% below market rates- and if mean figures are used the average landlord, is - as much as 30% below market rates, letting to a tenant who is in year 4 of a Part IV tenancy, and is only a bit under 50% odds, whether they increased the rent at all since the start of the tenancy..........

Its a whole lot of people actually.

Samuel T. Cogley

I stand corrected!

The_Conductor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The other night I had to let my tenant know I was putting his rent up becuase of this RPZ - otherwise I would have left it alone. If I do leave it alone can I back date the increase? Kept menaing to ask - would prefer to leave it alone, they are fantastic tenants.

Nope- and by mentioning it at all- regardless of whether or not you put it in writing- you have notified them of a 'review' and could find your hands tied for another 12 months, if you decide not to formally proceed with it. Of course, you're not obliged to charge the 4% per annum (or however much you're allowed charge, depending on when you last reviewed the rent)- if they are terrific tenants, I'd be inclined to leave good enough alone- and extremely loathe to notify the RTB of a formal review- however, if the price to be paid- is a new tenant is entitled to the goodwill generated by the old tenant- then, I'd forget about good will- and look at it purely as a business proposition.

That said- most landlords- do believe in good will- however unfair it is that someone they have never met before in their life has the right to inherit the goodwill created by an excellent tenant..........

Only way to guarantee a good future tenant- is to up the number of month's deposit required- and it cannot be used as rent (a-la the landlord in Christchurch in Dublin offering to let his apartment on a sliding scale- depending on how many months' deposit a tenant is willing to pay).

jamesthepeach

If you haven't given a rent review in the last couple of years you are actually worse off waiting to start your increments at a future date.
Plug it into the formula and see.

Fian

jamesthepeach wrote: »

If you haven't given a rent review in the last couple of years you are actually worse off waiting to start your increments at a future date.
Plug it into the formula and see.

absolutely - the first review under RPZ is based off 2% per annum, subsequent based off 4% per annum. This is on foot of an amendments which was inserted when it was pointed out that the first review for most people would be 8% - because of the 24 month freeze. In fact it would have been 9% for tenancies not previously reviewed - because it would have been 27/12 months at 4% per annum (allowing for the 90 days) - 2.25*4%.

anyway the first review should be made at the first opportunity from a landlords perspective - on the first possible day.

The_Conductor

jamesthepeach wrote: »

If you haven't given a rent review in the last couple of years you are actually worse off waiting to start your increments at a future date.
Plug it into the formula and see.

I know that- and you know that- but for a landlord who has had a tenant for the last 4-5 years. has had no issues with them whatsover- and would rather they stayed, than have an unknown quantity of a new tenant- with so many stories of tenants maliciously destroying properties- most of which don't even go to the RTB- as the landlords know its pointless- you can rapidly see why landlords let rent increases slide- often with the intention of bringing them up to market rates again if/when they get a new tenant- however, that rug has been pulled from under them...........

Its a silly situation to put someone in- they'd rather not increase rent for a tenant- but they know it'll be held against them at a later date, if they don't. How is that fair on anyone?

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

I know that- and you know that- but for a landlord who has had a tenant for the last 4-5 years. has had no issues with them whatsover- and would rather they stayed, than have an unknown quantity of a new tenant- with so many stories of tenants maliciously destroying properties- most of which don't even go to the RTB- as the landlords know its pointless- you can rapidly see why landlords let rent increases slide- often with the intention of bringing them up to market rates again if/when they get a new tenant- however, that rug has been pulled from under them...........

Its a silly situation to put someone in- they'd rather not increase rent for a tenant- but they know it'll be held against them at a later date, if they don't. How is that fair on anyone?

The tenant won't be going anywhere. They won't get as good a deal from anyone else as the capped increase on their existing rent. If they look around they won't get better value. They will mutter and moan but they will get used to it. They won't cease being good tenants because of a rent increase.

Electric Sheep

The general quality of rentals in Ireland is already abysmal, rent controls can't make it any worse.

Murrisk

testaccount123 wrote: »

I really dont get this. Rents are at a historical high and have been rising hugely year on year yet we are supposed to believe landlords are all simultaneously renting well below market rates.

Also, if renting well below market rates wasnt an issue for all these landlords before the rent controls came in why is it suddenly an issue for them now?

I dont understand why if these landlords needed to increase the rent they didnt bother doing it while there were no restrictions on doing so?

No doubt some landlords will use these controls as an excuse to spend less on the maintenance of their properties.

Agreed. It makes little sense.

Murrisk

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You're conflating market rate and profitable rate.

Surely profit isn't a given for any landlord? The rent is helping towards paying off the mortgage at the end of which the landlord will have an asset which they didn't need to fully meet the payments for themselves.

Graham

Murrisk wrote: »

Surely profit isn't a given for any landlord? The rent is helping towards paying off the mortgage at the end of which the landlord will have an asset which they didn't need to fully meet the payments for themselves.

Why should landlords not make a profit on assets like any other business?

When you stay in a hotel, you're often contributing to the acquisition of the asset and the day-to-day profit.

When you take a flight the airlines don't expect to just cover the cost of buying the planes.