Daft Rental Report is Out

Samuel T. Cogley

http://www.daft.ie/report/2017-Q1-rental-daft-report.pdf

Thought we could have a chat... before I actually read it, so this is more of a news dump... for now.

New all time national average though €1131 - ouch!

Michael D Not Higgins

Same story as the last couple of years, decreasing supply and increasing rent.

The_Conductor

Just listening to RTE at lunchtime- they're blaming the RPZs for the increases particularly in the Dublin area. Talk about laws of unintended consequences- if this is true. Haven't had a chance to read the report at all yet myself.

quadrifoglio verde

You'd want your head examined to be renting out a 5 bed house in south Dublin at a yield of 2.8%, when you can get a yield of 11.8% renting out a 1 bed in Dublin 10!
Across the board, Dublin 10 seems to be giving the best yields

OldNotWIse

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

http://www.daft.ie/report/2017-Q1-rental-daft-report.pdf

Thought we could have a chat... before I actually read it, so this is more of a news dump... for now.

New all time national average though €1131 - ouch!

It would go to my heart to pay this

cherryghost

I consider myself lucky reading this. Got a house Jan last year, 4 bed and paying 1100 a month incl insurance. Beforehand I was paying only 800 p/m in a 1 bed apt in the city centre. Same place was advertised at 1200 there a few months ago....

Idbatterim

its really visionary stuff from councils and Coveney, restricting building heights to small town levels in Dublin (the current city development was signed off on only a few months ago)... This is the level of Morons that you are dealing with and we wonder why nothing works here... :rolleyes:

of course the high prices suit them and their agenda down to the ground...

quadrifoglio verde

Idbatterim wrote: »

its really visionary stuff from councils and Coveney, restricting building heights to small town levels in Dublin (the current city development was signed off on only a few months ago)... This is the level of Morons that you are dealing with and we wonder why nothing works here... :rolleyes:

of course the high prices suit them and their agenda down to the ground...

The funniest part of it is, is that the Norman's built taller buildings than what is currently allowed I'm parts of Dublin

Idbatterim

it shouldn't have been a free for all, keep it 6-7 floors or appropriate in the old city centre. But the docklands in particular, along with Sandyford and brown field sites, should have been the release valve for the "old centre" ... I believe the Irish glass bottle site originally was to house 10,000 units, its now 3,500...

Samuel T. Cogley

cherryghost wrote: »

I consider myself lucky reading this. Got a house Jan last year, 4 bed and paying 1100 a month incl insurance. Beforehand I was paying only 800 p/m in a 1 bed apt in the city centre. Same place was advertised at 1200 there a few months ago....

I rented my place out at 1000 - asking is not 1400 in the space of less than two years. To The_Conductors point you guys already know I'm increasing the rent on mine purely because of the legislation. If they removed the single issue of having to continue the discount between tenancies I'd leave it be, even if it meant I could only increase by the back dated RPZ amount.

Villa05

The_Conductor wrote:

Just listening to RTE at lunchtime- they're blaming the RPZs for the increases particularly in the Dublin area. Talk about laws of unintended consequences- if this is true. Haven't had a chance to read the report at all yet myself.

Ronan Lyons was drawing attention to the fair deal scheme for nursing home care as contributer to the lack of supply.
Sometimes you would wonder whether all this government interference is by accident or design.

Idbatterim

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ires-reit-may-set-record-for-rent-for-two-bed-in-sandyford-1.3075622

An extract from that link

Apartments at Ires Reit’s latest development in Sandyford, south Dublin, are set to rent from €2,570 for a two-bed apartment when the scheme launches on July 4th, setting a possible new record for the area.
The Maple, at Beacon South Quarter, is a newly-built development of 68 apartments – four one-bed, 55 two-bed and nine three-bed apartments. It was constructed by the property fund, Ireland’s biggest private landlord, specifically for the rental market, and Ires Reit promises “well-appointed, spacious apartments” with private garden areas, at the location.
Tenants will pay a premium to live there, however, with one-beds due to hit the market at €1,925, two-beds from €2,570 and three-beds from €2,750.

LirW

Once the majority of leases are going to run out, especially for families and the kind who're renting from private landlords, or if they decide to sell up (something I'd suggest every private LL at the moment) this is going to get really messy.
In two years time, we'll hear from massive overcrowding involving families with children and elderly on a very regular base. This is so sad.

The_Conductor

LirW wrote: »

massive overcrowding involving families with children and elderly on a very regular base. This is so sad.

The CSO released housing stats as the first tranche of census statistics- which show this already. Just shy of 700,000 people are living in overcrowded conditions- over a third of whom are owner occupiers.

Yes- things are going to get a lot worse in the immediate future- particularly if the vast preponderance of property being built are 1 and 2 bed apartments.

LirW

The problem I see with this is if you're a family or pretty much not the perfect "young working professional (couple)" tenant, you're facing homelessness once you get evicted. Where is this going to head?

The_Conductor

LirW wrote: »

The problem I see with this is if you're a family or pretty much not the perfect "young working professional (couple)" tenant, you're facing homelessness once you get evicted. Where is this going to head?

But there aren't any new 'family' homes entering the rental market- matter of fact- pretty much any sane landlord who has a 'family house' is getting rid of it- while the market is as bouyant as it is. There is nothing to say that families are even buying these units- aka the available stock of 'family homes' for renting- is dwindling........ The government's plans are only encouraging this trend- to be brutally honest, you'd need your head examined to remain a landlord in the sector- esp. with second hand prices as strong as they are.

LirW

And I can't blame landlords for selling up, their own decision, I would too because of all the hassle.
I'm serious though, there are lots of families depending on the rental sector, what will the governments future policy be?

Murrisk

cherryghost wrote: »

I consider myself lucky reading this. Got a house Jan last year, 4 bed and paying 1100 a month incl insurance. Beforehand I was paying only 800 p/m in a 1 bed apt in the city centre. Same place was advertised at 1200 there a few months ago....

I consider myself lucky too. OH and I live in a 1-bed apartment that we pay €1050 pm a month for including an on-site gym. Our bills are really low too as it's very well insulated and we're on the third floor so we rarely have to use the heating. I thought this was very high when we moved in here back in May 2014 as we were moving from a 2-bed in Grand Canal Dock that we paid €975 pm for because our landlady was selling up. But when that apartment went back on the rental market after being sold a year and a half later, the monthly rent had shot up to €1500 pm. Naturally, as it's near town and a lot of MNCs. Meanwhile in our current apartment complex, rents in similar 1-bed apartments to ours are now €1250 -€1300 pm. By the RPZ rules, our rent can go up to around €1100 if the landlord decides tomorrow that he wants to do that. That's manageable.

please helpThank YOU

Your in trouble if you live in one of the cities in Ireland and you are renting. With the overpriced rents you may literally have to go hungry to pay the landlord the rent.

Gamb!t

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Your in trouble if you live in one of the cities in Ireland and you are renting. With the overpriced rents you may literally have to go hungry to pay the landlord the rent.

Or just leave the country which I am hoping to do

IronSteve

Nothing worse than 'I consider myself lucky' posts in these threads

DubCount

The Daft report only captures new property being advertised. I believe the RPZ legislation has created a 2 speed rental market. Sitting tenants are only moving on when evicted, and are enjoying controlled pricing. New market entrants are facing rock bottom supply and sky high prices.

With nothing being done to encourage more housing supply, and nothing being done to encourage landlords to stay in the market (like addressing the time and cost of dealing with overholding), I cant see any future reports showing anything different for the next couple of years.

I fear we will see more demand side tinkering from our Government as a result of this.

jamesthepeach

LirW wrote: »

Once the majority of leases are going to run out, especially for families and the kind who're renting from private landlords, or if they decide to sell up (something I'd suggest every private LL at the moment) this is going to get really messy.
In two years time, we'll hear from massive overcrowding involving families with children and elderly on a very regular base. This is so sad.

I havent even gotten out yet, but I will be. Look at the effect so far, and i imagine its just the tip of the ice berg of landlords who have stopped renting already this year. Many other landlords tenants are still serving notice. In the next few months all of those landlords will be bailing out.

I predict Coveny will only put out more legislation making it even worse for landlords again. Time to get out now, before he rogers you the rest of the way.

quadrifoglio verde

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I havent even gotten out yet, but I will be. Look at the effect so far, and i imagine its just the tip of the ice berg of landlords who have stopped renting already this year. Many other landlords tenants are still serving notice. In the next few months all of those landlords will be bailing out.

I predict Coveny will only put out more legislation making it even worse for landlords again. Time to get out now, before he rogers you the rest of the way.

I'd agree. I think everyone is seeing where this is going. If it's a part 4 tenancy, you won't be able to evict to sell.
Which straight away hampers who a landlord can sell to, as the banks won't lend with sitting tenants.
That's coming in the next 12 months

beauf

Villa05 wrote: »

....Sometimes you would wonder whether all this government interference is by accident or design.

Do You think its co-incidence that everything the Govt does has the effect of reducing supply, and increasing rents. Especially for large investments properties, funds.

IRELAND’S LARGEST PRIVATE landlord, Ires Reit, will set a new benchmark for rents in south Dublin with its latest development in the capital.

http://www.thejournal.ie/ires-sandyford-apartments-2-3380707-May2017/

Rent controls and replacing small landlords with larger ones was very popular with many people on these forums. Even when previous experience elsewhere, indicated otherwise.

beauf

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I'd agree. I think everyone is seeing where this is going. If it's a part 4 tenancy, you won't be able to evict to sell.
Which straight away hampers who a landlord can sell to, as the banks won't lend with sitting tenants.
That's coming in the next 12 months

A new LL won't want a property locked into a below market value rent either. So it will be likely be bought by someone to live in and be taken off the rental market entirely. The LL will only be able to sell once the part 4 is up for renewal.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

Do You think its co-incidence that everything the Govt does has the effect of reducing supply, and increasing rents. Especially for large investments properties, funds.



http://www.thejournal.ie/ires-sandyford-apartments-2-3380707-May2017/

Rent controls and replacing small landlords with larger ones was very popular with many people on these forums. Even when previous experience elsewhere, indicated otherwise.

Thats the largest landlord in the country- IRES REIT.
They were trying to put 10,000 units on this property (from memory) but got shot down to 3,500.

I'm sorry- but all of those people who expressed a wish to banish small landlords from the market- are unfortunately getting what they wished for.

The statement from the IRES REIT website- makes reference to the large cadre of international companies in the area- referencing Microsoft, Vodafone and others. It seems to have escaped them that the average salaries in these companies- even if it was paid wholly over to their landlord- wouldn't cover the rent on some of these (much less any other expenditure.

To have any standard of living you'd need at least a salary of 60k for a single person or a joint salary of up to 150k- if you plan on living in one of these units.

IRES REIT- of course are suggesting that these units are something special- that is not available elsewhere (I'd dispute this- there are some small developments in the area with concierges etc)- and that they shouldn't be held up as the direction things are going (which of course is bull****- as they'll do the exact same with their other developments at the first possible opportunity).

Actions like this by IRES REIT- do not help anyone- its a short term gain for the IRES- at significant cost to absolutely everyone else- notably tenants and other landlords.

The government really needs to investigate the actions of companies with power in the market such as this one- to ensure anticompetitive behaviour does not evolve- this action can only be viewed by any bystander- as a 'testing of the water' to see just what they can get away with........ Timing is spot on too- with the housing Minister expected to formally start campaigning for his new post- and the summer recess on the horizon for the houses of the Oireachtas.

jamesthepeach

beauf wrote: »

A new LL won't want a property locked into a below market value rent either. So it will be likely be bought by someone to live in and be taken off the rental market entirely. The LL will only be able to sell once the part 4 is up for renewal.

I think they will be bought with a view to refurbishment if they are to be left on the market. I think one beds are the only investment game in town at the moment. Less work, less tenants, bigger yields by some margin.

If they are being taken off the market then family homes will be bought by families or couples and any house shared will be split up.

It's a fact that the government has never ever done anything to change the rental market here that hasn't rested in making it worse.

When will they get the message. Interference is ALWAYS disastrous.

Wanderer78

jamesthepeach wrote:

When will they get the message. Interference is ALWAYS disastrous.

The market knows nothing I'm afraid, it's time to ditch this ridiculous notion of the market knows best. The right type of intervention is required

beauf

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The market knows nothing I'm afraid, it's time to ditch this ridiculous notion of the market knows best. The right type of intervention is required

I think that's taking the term "knows" too literally.

The market will always adjust to supply and demand. Even if that's under the counter payments to get around and artificial rules.

There is only one​ type of intervention that will work. Over supply.

Every other intervention thus far has had the opposite effect than intended. How Many times does this have to happen before people learn that you can't compensate for chronic under supply of housing by more rules.

Bob24

Wanderer78 wrote: »

jamesthepeach wrote:

When will they get the message. Interference is ALWAYS disastrous.

The market knows nothing I'm afraid, it's time to ditch this ridiculous notion of the market knows best. The right type of intervention is required

Really depends on what "market knows" and "interventions" means.

Of course wild unregulated competition is not always good and regulation is sometimes required.

But if intervention means trying to patch issues for some people while not addressing the root causes (which is what the gouvernement has been doing here), it often leads to things getting out of countrol and creating even more issues (for exemple increasing while some level of regulation is obviously needed in the area there is a point when adding more protection for existing tenants becomes couter-productive as it clearly makes it even worse for prospect tenants or those who want to move because their current home doesn't fit their needs anymore, which in the long term will hurt everyone at some stage and makes the rental market less fluid with some people staying in unsuitable accommodation because the cost of moving is too high).

jamesthepeach

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The market knows nothing I'm afraid, it's time to ditch this ridiculous notion of the market knows best. The right type of intervention is required

There is just the market.
You can join the market or leave the market.
In this case the government needs to join the market.
Trying to control it will only distort the market and it never works out.

Wanderer78

beauf wrote:

The market will always adjust to supply and demand. Even if that's under the counter payments to get around and artificial rules.

We put too much faith in market equilibrium models, they fail time and time again in dealing with our actual needs. I'm disturbed watching this tragedy unfold when our housing shortfall was spotted almost 10 years ago

Yourself isit

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I think they will be bought with a view to refurbishment if they are to be left on the market. I think one beds are the only investment game in town at the moment. Less work, less tenants, bigger yields by some margin.

If they are being taken off the market then family homes will be bought by families or couples and any house shared will be split up.

It's a fact that the government has never ever done anything to change the rental market here that hasn't rested in making it worse.

When will they get the message. Interference is ALWAYS disastrous.

Rubbish. The free market can't produce enough housing for everybody.

The government should interfere more but not in the pro developer crony capitalist way it already has.

jamesthepeach

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We put too much faith in market equilibrium models, they fail time and time again in dealing with our actual needs. I'm disturbed watching this tragedy unfold when our housing shortfall was spotted almost 10 years ago

I don't think anybody was worried about a future housing shortage 10 years ago tbh.

jamesthepeach

Yourself isit wrote: »

Rubbish. The free market can't produce enough housing for everybody.

The government should interfere more but not in the pro developer crony capitalist way it already has.

How would you do it then?
Obviously noone else has figured out how to do it without disaster. So if you can you would be unique.

Wanderer78

jamesthepeach wrote:

I don't think anybody was worried about a future housing shortage 10 years ago tbh.

Tom Lyons has been writing about the housing shortage since 2009, particularly in the Dublin region. He wasn't alone

jamesthepeach

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Tom Lyons has been writing about the housing shortage since 2009, particularly in the Dublin region. He wasn't alone

2009 was 8 years ago not 10.
We all know what our concerns were 10 years ago. They weren't about a lack of property in 2017.

Wanderer78

jamesthepeach wrote:

2009 was 8 years ago not 10. We all know what our concerns were 10 years ago. They weren't about a lack of property in 2017.

Oh come on, what's the difference? I did say 'almost' 10 years ago!

jamesthepeach

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh come on, what's the difference? I did say 'almost' 10 years ago!

Do you have a link to the article, I'd like to read it.
Might be fun.

Wanderer78

jamesthepeach wrote:

Do you have a link to the article, I'd like to read it. Might be fun.

I don't to be honest, but I'd say if you goggled Tom Lyons you 'll eventually get there. He said he was highly ridiculed for it at the time as ghost estates were all the news back then. It was well spotted in my view. It really isn't a joking matter in my eyes, this is truly disturbing to watch unfold

athtrasna

Folks please take the to and fro to pm as it's starting to monopolise this thread. Thanks

Mod

Yourself isit

jamesthepeach wrote: »

How would you do it then?
Obviously noone else has figured out how to do it without disaster. So if you can you would be unique.

Without disaster? Plenty of countries have functional markets with rental controls. The UK had controls until thatcher.

Also when the government built housing it acted as a stabiliser.

The free market caused the last boom here, and the recent failure to develop was a total market failure.


Not that bad government policy won't exacerbate issues though.

antoinolachtnai

There are plenty vacant properties in dublin (32000) and if they were brought online, it would make a big difference to the housing situation in the short term. It could be done with taxation, but it requires political will.

Bob24

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There are plenty vacant properties in dublin (32000) and if they were brought online, it would make a big difference to the housing situation in the short term. It could be done with taxation, but it requires political will.

Ironically it would probably be stopped by the like of Paul Murphy pretending to defend the common man but who would be shouting "can't pay, won't pay" if the government was trying to increase property tax (a move which would both make the purchasing market more fluid and bring new properties onto the rental market by making things less comfortable for speculators).

Villa05

beauf wrote:

Do You think its co-incidence that everything the Govt does has the effect of reducing supply, and increasing rents. Especially for large investments properties, funds.

Some of it is a bit ingenious In achieving a reduction in supply so that makes me think is it a side effect of policy or actual policy.

Fol20

Bob24 wrote: »

Ironically it would probably be stopped by the like of Paul Murphy pretending to defend the common man but who would be shouting "can't pay, won't pay" if the government was trying to increase property tax (a move which would both make the purchasing market more fluid and bring new properties onto the rental market by making things less comfortable for speculators).

And at the same time cause more financial burden on some people who may already be struggling. How about the people who paid a large chunk of change 10 years ago for stamp and now have to pay lpt. A separate charge on unused properties might be good. At least then nama or whoever owns them might put them on the market for rent and alleviate the rental crisis until everything settles down again

Fol20

I understand that everything needs some amount of legislation but as we have seen in building property. Too much legislation adds extra costs and acts as a disincentive as well. Renting is getting too many requirements now days. Speaking from ll point of view, inwould much prefer to drop the rental per month by x amount if i didn't have to supply people with crappy beds etc that nobody wants. Likewise give people a blank slate where they can do what they want with it but give it back to me in the same condition I gave it to you in.

Bob24

Fol20 wrote: »

A separate charge on unused properties might be good.

I think it is too easy to dodge (you can always pretend the property is being used and it will be difficult to check). Increasing LPT and possibly releasing tax burden on those individuals who are too impacted though other ways would be better to fluidity the marker.

The idea is that if you have higher regular charges for owing a property it will give on incentive for those who have one and are not fully usign it to release it onto the market (sell or rent). Long term it is actually good for everyone (except speculators) as it tend to reduce prices and people can possibly save more in mortgage repayments than they would pay in additional LPT.

antoinolachtnai

I think the way to go would be to suspend most requirements on properties which have been vacant, for the first few years.

You can let unfurnished as it is, but there isn't that much market for it. There are certainly things you are expected to provide, true.

Michael D Not Higgins

Fol20 wrote: »

I understand that everything needs some amount of legislation but as we have seen in building property. Too much legislation adds extra costs and acts as a disincentive as well. Renting is getting too many requirements now days. Speaking from ll point of view, inwould much prefer to drop the rental per month by x amount if i didn't have to supply people with crappy beds etc that nobody wants. Likewise give people a blank slate where they can do what they want with it but give it back to me in the same condition I gave it to you in.

You're able to rent unfurnished in the Irish legislation. There is no need to provide beds, good or crappy. There are requirements for white goods in the kitchen however.

Tenants are supposed to return the property in the same condition taking into account wear and tear.