Media: Red tape forces Property Agent to drop small scale landlords

The_Conductor

Link to the story in today's Irish Times here

In essence:

Hooke and MacDonald have stated that because of the excessive legislative burden associated with letting residential properties- it is no longer financially viable for them to manage single lettings or small portfolios on behalf of landlords- and they are exiting the business.

Looks like options for small scale landlords- and keep in mind- 62% of all residential lettings are the sole property of the landlord- are going to become more and more constrained.

Perhaps someone might like to point the Minister in the direction of a copy of Thesaurus- in particular to the entry for 'law of unintended consequences'.

Askthe EA

The_Conductor wrote: »

Link to the story in today's Irish Times here

In essence:

Hooke and MacDonald have stated that because of the excessive legislative burden associated with letting residential properties- it is no longer financially viable for them to manage single lettings or small portfolios on behalf of landlords- and they are exiting the business.

Looks like options for small scale landlords- and keep in mind- 62% of all residential lettings are the sole property of the landlord- are going to become more and more constrained.

Perhaps someone might like to point the Minister in the direction of a copy of Thesaurus- in particular to the entry for 'law of unintended consequences'.

I'm not surprised by this at all. The risk to ones insurance outweighs the benefit of relatively small management fees.

The_Conductor

Askthe EA wrote: »

I'm not surprised by this at all. The risk to ones insurance outweighs the benefit of relatively small management fees.

If they're charging a flat 10% (which is the norm) its probably between 2k-3k per annum per unit- I can easily see how/why it might be considered onerous- however, for a larger estate agent, such as Hooke and MacDonald- you'd imagine they have automated systems setup to manage most of the elements of a letting- and could simply lob an admin fee on any call outs.........

The regulatory environment is onerous- however- its onerous no matter who it falls on- the better course of action might be to increase the agency charge- to reflect this- rather than abandoning the market- however, even if you doubled it- perhaps its still not a reflection of the cost of dealing with single or low numbers of units..........

Its obvious- the Minister wants to get the 62% of units being let by single owner landlords- off the market- and from talking to some staff in the Department- sold off altogether. This might be assisted by either abolishing the FTB grant altogether- or restructuring it- so it was lessened significantly- but applied to the whole market- and giving developers a straight grant per unit built instead (as the world and its dog knows the FTB grant is simply an incentive for developers- as per the RTE Investigates study- and the reports on News at One- the week after the scheme was announced- which showed the grant being pretty much exactly incremented onto the price of new builds overnight).

If 62% of the available housing stock on the letting market- is sold off- its going to get a hell of a lot more cut throat in the rental market- before there is any improvement in future.........

Is 10% the going rate for Hooke and MacDonald- or is it higher- and was there any discussion with landlords regarding increasing the percentage- rather than simply deciding to throw in the towel and exiting the market?

Also- would landlords accept a 20% agency fee- ontop of management charges and all the other charges? It could mean, after tax, in some situations (particularly where landlords don't have their properties mortgaged to the hilt)- some landlords might net as low as 38-40% of their gross rental income (which seems quite remarkable)........

Something really doesn't add up.

GGTrek

I just give you an example of the level of red tape. I recently sent a rent review notice to a tenant within an RPZ. To stick to the letter of the law, the rent review notice was 8 pages long!!! With the first 2 pages occupied with all sorts of calculations to get 4.25% of increase and the remaining 6 pages with all the equivalent properties for rent (within the previous 4 weeks of the serving date) which is a requirement the goverment could have dropped for a property in an RPZ. To be sure that no one tried to be "smart" every single page had to be numbered and signed and everything in two copies (one for the tenant and one for my records in the remote case the rent review is challenged)

Compare this with the simplicity of a section 34(b) notice (i.e. to terminate the tenancy at the end of part 4). Just one page, witness signs. What is worse for a tenant: a rent review or a termination notice?

My agent and I are handing out termination notices for 2017 and early 2018 like there is no future. Some of the tenants ask me why? I just tell them to ask the Irish govvie and think about what they have done in the past 4 years. No more long term tenancies for me except for top notch tenants (one out 5 only that really perform their tenant duties and actually care about the property they live in) and if the top notch tenants leave there will be no new long term lease, max 6 months on the most profitable properties and a few profitable sales. In my view the situation in Dublin for tenants will worsen substantially thanks to the Irish govvie paternalist legislation.

The_Conductor

Honestly- government policy is to get landlords to sell up- and ideally, to owner occupiers. If tenants think this is a good idea- I'm really sorry, but its going to get harder and harder to find somewhere to live- particularly in high demand areas- as inevitably these will in all probability where landlords sell first. Dublin property has plateau'ed- too- and its actively being discussed on irishlandlords.ie and similar sites- now is viewed as a good time to get out.

Minister Coveney- in all probability- will be moved to another Department- so this is all going to fall into the lap of someone else. It looks like its going to be another 'Department of Health' poison chalice, that no-one wants.

Askthe EA

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- government policy is to get landlords to sell up- and ideally, to owner occupiers. If tenants think this is a good idea- I'm really sorry, but its going to get harder and harder to find somewhere to live- particularly in high demand areas- as inevitably these will in all probability where landlords sell first. Dublin property has plateau'ed- too- and its actively being discussed on irishlandlords.ie and similar sites- now is viewed as a good time to get out.

Minister Coveney- in all probability- will be moved to another Department- so this is all going to fall into the lap of someone else. It looks like its going to be another 'Department of Health' poison chalice, that no-one wants.

And yet, a reduction in VAT on new builds and a site tax would bring a tonne of new stock on the market within a very short period of time.

testaccount123

Good, the sooner small scale landlords are driven out of the market the better.

The_Conductor

Askthe EA wrote: »

And yet, a reduction in VAT on new builds and a site tax would bring a tonne of new stock on the market within a very short period of time.

Honestly- I think the site tax is the way to go- however, the Minister has said it might be unconstitutional. Might be? Hell- half of what they've done thus far are questionable at best.

The_Conductor

testaccount123 wrote: »

Good, the sooner small scale landlords are driven out of the market the better.

62% of all property let on the rental market is let by landlords who are letting their sole property. An estimated 48,000 of these- are themselves renting elsewhere.

If you imagine getting small scale landlords out of the market is going to be some panancea for the ills of the sector- you're being incredibly myopic.

The issue is a lack of supply- we need to build at least 25,000 properties per annum- ideally about 32,000-33,000 for a 5-7 year period, falling back to 25,000 on a sustained basis.

The larger REITs are featuring more and more in RTB tribunals- if you imagine they are immune to tenant/landlord issues- you're in for a right shock- if you discover your only option to rent from a vulture fund.

pwurple

testaccount123 wrote: »

Good, the sooner small scale landlords are driven out of the market the better.

Yeah, we really need more vulture funds.... :rolleyes:

DubCount

testaccount123 wrote: »

Good, the sooner small scale landlords are driven out of the market the better.

Of Course ....... Those vulture funds will be so much easier to deal with. Nobody needs all the taxes those small landlords pay and a small number big landlords couldn't possibly act as a monopoly. The future is bright

Askthe EA

The_Conductor wrote: »

The larger REITs are featuring more and more in RTB tribunals- if you imagine they are immune to tenant/landlord issues- you're in for a right shock- if you discover your only option to rent from a vulture fund.

Indeed. And they have the financial clout to challenge the residental tenancy act in court. They could well change the whole rental landscape.

No small scale landlords? Careful what you wish for!

wordofwarning

testaccount123 wrote: »

Good, the sooner small scale landlords are driven out of the market the better.

Will you be saying that when your apartment owned by a German pension or a Boston REIT sends a rent increase like clockwork every year? Will be waiting with anticipation to see what the faceless owner decides to up your rent to ?

The reviews of living in apartments owned by 'professionals' is not good. One has five 1 star ratings on Google. Another openly brags about how it loves having a high turnover of tenants, as it can increase rent each time they move out. I don't know about you, but I don't know many businesses that openly love to discuss about how to it loves to get rid of existing customers to gouge new ones

If people want to rent an apartment owned by a 'professional' there is plenty of them for let. One REIT has 20 properties listed on daft.ie currently(it is isn't even the biggest REIT). Obviously some people are not too keen about paying €1,900 for a one bedroom apartment. Or €3,300 for a 2 bedroom apartment.

There is nothing stopping you paying €1,900 for an apartment now! You don't need force small property owners off of the market to pay for an overpriced apartment from a landlord who will be delighted to see the back of you in 12 months time...

Lumen

If the burden is from dealing with tenants, why is H&M specifically dropping small landlords?

The_Conductor

Lumen wrote: »

If the burden is from dealing with tenants, why is H&M specifically dropping small landlords?

I imagine its the maintenance aspect- its easier to keep an electrician or a plumber on call- for a large development of 200 units- than it is for 200 units scattered hither and thither around a county. Its also easier to get sign-off on repairs etc. It would also be a lot more convenient for tenancy management purposes etc.

jamesthepeach

Far too many hoops to jump through now for a landlord. Agencies are having to guide the landlords through these hoops. Then when something goes wrong with the tenant it goes back to the agency.
Landlord asks why the agency aren't dealing with the RTB as it's the tenant they got and look after. And agencies have decided it's just not worth the effort anymore.
Everyone is losing under these stupid regulations. Landlord, tenant, agency. All losing.

TheDoc

The_Conductor wrote: »

Link to the story in today's Irish Times here

In essence:

Hooke and MacDonald have stated that because of the excessive legislative burden associated with letting residential properties- it is no longer financially viable for them to manage single lettings or small portfolios on behalf of landlords- and they are exiting the business.

Looks like options for small scale landlords- and keep in mind- 62% of all residential lettings are the sole property of the landlord- are going to become more and more constrained.

Perhaps someone might like to point the Minister in the direction of a copy of Thesaurus- in particular to the entry for 'law of unintended consequences'.

Probably worth noting here that the business in question, which it does state in the article, is experiencing resourcing issues managing these portfolios.

In essence, they arn't cutting as much margin and profit as they once were for the work going in. While on one hand yes you can say that it's a negative impact from the legislation now in place, it's also worth noting that they might have been on a bit of a gravy train, cutting a nice profit from minimal work and shortcuts that isn't there anymore.

Typically when I see any business "blame" government or legislation for a withdraw of their services or a product I'm really looking to see the company either struggling financially, or they lost a quick earner.

You see it in insurance all the time, it's not necessarily a "bad thing" but it's painted to blame someone to ensure there isn't an impression the business are struggling.

As with anything "new" in terms of legislature or red tape, it just hasn't been in play long enough for someone to work out how to systematically implement it.

TheDoc

GGTrek wrote: »

[/u]
My agent and I are handing out termination notices for 2017 and early 2018 like there is no future. Some of the tenants ask me why? I just tell them to ask the Irish govvie and think about what they have done in the past 4 years.

Just playing devils advocate, what have you done, or landlords done, in the last 4 years, to prove to the government there is an ability to self regulate.

I know it's nice to feel like you're hand is being forced, that it's the big bad government, but the reality here, which many landlords won't ever accept, is that you operated in a wild west. Many were pulling down nice profits and basically just looking after their own turf.

It was clearly only a matter of time, as the situation got worse and more ridiculous, that a government, who react based on public popular opinion (whether its right or not) was going to step in and regulate or legislate. And history shows they ALWAYS go overboard, with then subsequent years made adjusting.

I've worked and had discussions with Departments when it comes to showing self regulation. When you can see the writing on the wall, and that you want the government to stay out, or show you can self regulate and get things under control. And it's always better in this situation then have a government hand rule the roost.

You might say its unavoidable because it's housing, but I don't know. You show a strong enough case for self regulation and it becomes a collaborative effort, instead you got the government dropping down heavy.

Like what is the national association for landlords? Which is the "one" that acts as the conduit for landlords at a national/lobbying level. I've heard of five different assosiations when following the rental market on radio and media. So if five groups are trying to lobby for the same entity, obviously the government will be sighing.

Bit late in the day I know, but maybe not to amend in the future. But you guys need to have a national recognised association and lobby group. You might think you have one, but the indication to the general public, and surely the government civil servants maybe tasked with these talks, see a scattered approach.

Jsut devils advocate btw, but think it's too easy to point the finger elsewhere. And I've seen it happened so many times before, be it sports, hobbies, business, even down to the taxi deregulation. Everyone loves being on the gravy grain and never wants to make the smarter longterm plan, and end up just getting wrecked when the government step in

TheDoc

The_Conductor wrote: »

62% of all property let on the rental market is let by landlords who are letting their sole property. An estimated 48,000 of these- are themselves renting elsewhere.

If you imagine getting small scale landlords out of the market is going to be some panancea for the ills of the sector- you're being incredibly myopic.

The issue is a lack of supply- we need to build at least 25,000 properties per annum- ideally about 32,000-33,000 for a 5-7 year period, falling back to 25,000 on a sustained basis.

The larger REITs are featuring more and more in RTB tribunals- if you imagine they are immune to tenant/landlord issues- you're in for a right shock- if you discover your only option to rent from a vulture fund.

And yet it's likely larger REIT's, investors etc. that will have greater bargaining power in terms of arranging for certain cuts, discounts or basically just capital assistance to get larger prospects going.

I can see from a government department/state agency level, a preference for larger organisations coming in with expertise and whatever to get large scale projects underway.

Appreciate what you are saying about the relationship and issues part, but then I think it's fair to say there is plenty of issues also with single property landlords, or landlords who are just totally out of their depth.

The "theory" with a shift to consolidate organisations/companies managing large projects, is some regulation and normality can develop.

Lack of supply is the issue. No question about it. Everyone knows this. And while social housing falls under this, social housing is a part, a percentage, and I'd argue the minority in terms of the real demands.

You can't really blame or ignore that there is likely a preference, even a desire, to have experienced property builders or REIT's to come to Dublin and start large scale projects. And I'm sure the government if not already trying to entice this business will look too. It will provide the sort of numbers and unit availability that will make it look like the government are doing something.

There is no real alternative here. Hope the single owners spring up into multi property landlords? Supply is going to need a joint private and public measure, and the private part is really just one option surely?

Again not to ignore your correct point that large property owning/renting institutions arn't some utopia for tennants, but I don't think anyone is claiming that. And it also can't be ignored the substantial issues that occur with the current landlord setup, where there is many cases where its pure incompetance, scheming, fraud or just being utterly out of their depth (caveated obviously with the good landlords and good tenants)

Electric Sheep

The_Conductor wrote: »

I imagine its the maintenance aspect- its easier to keep an electrician or a plumber on call- for a large development of 200 units- than it is for 200 units scattered hither and thither around a county. Its also easier to get sign-off on repairs etc. It would also be a lot more convenient for tenancy management purposes etc.

It's also a lot better for the tenants in a large development. Maintenance tends to be much better than in smaller lets, and tenants are able to use collective clout with the management to ensure lawful treatment.

beauf

Good luck with that...

GGTrek

TheDoc wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

[/u]
My agent and I are handing out termination notices for 2017 and early 2018 like there is no future. Some of the tenants ask me why? I just tell them to ask the Irish govvie and think about what they have done in the past 4 years.

Just playing devils advocate, what have you done, or landlords done, in the last 4 years, to prove to the government there is an ability to self regulate.

I know it's nice to feel like you're hand is being forced, that it's the big bad government, but the reality here, which many landlords won't ever accept, is that you operated in a wild west. Many were pulling down nice profits and basically just looking after their own turf.

It was clearly only a matter of time, as the situation got worse and more ridiculous, that a government, who react based on public popular opinion (whether its right or not)  was going to step in and regulate or legislate. And history shows they ALWAYS go overboard, with then subsequent years made adjusting.

I've worked and had discussions with Departments when it comes to showing self regulation. When you can see the writing on the wall, and that you want the government to stay out, or show you can self regulate and get things under control. And it's always better in this situation then have a government hand rule the roost.

You might say its unavoidable because it's housing, but I don't know. You show a strong enough case for self regulation and it becomes a collaborative effort, instead you got the government dropping down heavy.

Like what is the national association for landlords? Which is the "one" that acts as the conduit for landlords at a national/lobbying level. I've heard of five different assosiations when following the rental market on radio and media. So if five groups are trying to lobby for the same entity, obviously the government will be sighing.

Bit late in the day I know, but maybe not to amend in the future. But you guys need to have a national recognised association and lobby group. You might think you have one, but the indication to the general public, and surely the government civil servants maybe tasked with these talks, see a scattered approach.

Jsut devils advocate btw, but think it's too easy to point the finger elsewhere. And I've seen it happened so many times before, be it sports, hobbies, business, even down to the taxi deregulation. Everyone loves being on the gravy grain and never wants to make the smarter longterm plan, and end up just getting wrecked when the government step in

*************************
I shall tell you what I have done: there was no gravy train for me, I used to keep most of my tenancies below market rate, in good shape and paid my taxes and expected the tenants to reciprocate by not breaching leases and take care of the properties. Obviously there was no reciprocation from (most) tenants who could not care less (and this type of tenant has received termination notices either for breach of lease or part 4 termination).

In addition the latest govvie RTA 2016 joke and this even worse aborted attempt by socialists/communists TDs (there are a few participants in this own forum supporting this kind of actions/ideas) were a watershed for me (the classic "straw that broke the camel's back"):
http://www.newstalk.com/Ceann-Comhairle-steps-in-to-block-AntiEvictions-Bill-on-behalf-of-the-government
https://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=34257&&CatID=59

I know now that half of the Oireachtas TDs are ready to expropriate my properties if there is a tenant inside (which means they are opportunistic communists) and I am not the kind of person who forgets such a thing. I have seen with my own eyes the effects of communism when I was a child/adolescent and I absolutely do not want anything to do with this kind of people, who disgust me profoundly and personally.

The tenants have an organization partly paid by my own taxes called Threshold which is very dysfunctional in supporting them legally (ignorance/incompetence runs free within their ranks) but it is definitely much better than the IPOA in terms of government lobbying and media relations.

You are right to say that the IPOA are not up to the task (there are a few other minor landlords associations but they are even worse) since a challenge to the RTA 2016 should have been already lodged at the High Court at this time. I know now that they are just another self-serving organization which is happier to organize meetings, conferences and maintaining a few staff and paying a few dinners with membership fees, instead of taking the kind of harsh/hard legal/media campaign against the RTA 2016, which would show to the government that they have really overstepped the mark this time.

As a landlord I feel very much on my own and to be honest I see now the Irish govvie as my sworn enemy: since 2007 every single piece of legislation the govvie has passed on landlords has only damaged my business, so most of my tenants are just paying (a) for the unintended consequences of inexpensive (for the govvie) long term pandering and overregulating by the paternalistic, greedy and media savvy Irish govvie (b) not communicating to me or my agent about any issue at the properties or (c) worse, plainly breaking their lease agreement and thinking they can get away with it (this was probably my fault because in the past I let a lot of minor breaches pass, so when the s..t hit the proverbial fan this time they did not expect the reaction to be so harsh). Being that the government and its bureaucrats are so strict with me now I cannot anymore avoid being very strict with my tenants which is what the REITs do with tenants (for some posts enjoying the fact: be careful what you wish for).

In addition answering to the last post: sure the REITs will provide more modern builds to tenants that require less maintenance, but I doubt the vast majority of tenants in Irealnd can afford the rent levels the REITs charge. The real gravvy train in real estate in Ireland is/has been for the REITs/investment funds.

The only solution long term I can see for medium size landlords that want to continue to compete in Ireland is much more radical than just an association of landlords: we would have to pool the properties together, setup a REIT (I did some calculations in the past and the minimum capital to cover admin/legal costs is between 20-30M euros) and do like the REITs do: lobby the government, have legal muscle to take cases to High Court, build up a cozy relationship with the media, ... Problem is that there are a lot of deep mental/trust barriers to overcome to perform such a radical step.

wordofwarning

Electric Sheep wrote: »

It's also a lot better for the tenants in a large development. Maintenance tends to be much better than in smaller lets

I think most landlords would provide be able to provide better maintenance if they brought vast amounts of property at highly discounted prices, were borrowing at 1% and were charging a ridiculous rent for them. Maintenance is better, as much does not need to be done. Vulture funds and REITs have only really brought apartments built in Dublin in the last 15 years. They are not managing Victorian properties

Electric Sheep wrote: »

and tenants are able to use collective clout with the management to ensure lawful treatment.

Such as? One of the REIT brags about how it loves having a high turnover of tenants to keep the rents as high as possible. That sounds like amazing treatment.

rossmores

I wish to concur with the poster above have accelerated my part4 terminations moving to short term lets don't trust the government with more possible interference sad for the tenants they had well below market rates for good quality well maintained accommodation but i have to protect my investment from further erosion.
Had a recent advertised city center property generated 1100 email replies, might not suit agents they may want to avoid this especially if they gave out a phone number

listermint

Someone else will just take up hookes business here that they don't want.

Simple as that.

4ensic15

listermint wrote: »

Someone else will just take up hookes business here that they don't want.

Simple as that.

Not quite. many agents are finding management of individual units is no longer economic. 15 years ago, a tenant could be told "you lease is coming to an end in 6 weeks. Do you want to renew? New rent will be X. or landlord doesn't want to renew, you will have to move." End of story. Now a tenant can insist on part 4. Go to the RTB and hearings. Landlords have to have the legislation explained to them. You can't go back after the lease. you ctermination notice during the lease. You can't put the rent up for another 6 months. We have to charge x because of the paperwork in even trying to increase the rent. the tenant may appeal and it will cost X in the RTB. If there is one LL with 20 units it might be reasonable to explain the intricacies to them and operate accoredingly. If there are 20 with one unit each it is a massive pain. How long is the conversation going to be when the LL is told, "you apartment is vacant, it will take X amount to claean and paint it. The rent next door is X a month but you are stuck with X -400 a month because of rent capping. Remember you told us 2 years ago not to increase the rent because she was such a nice tenant?

The_Conductor

listermint wrote: »

Someone else will just take up hookes business here that they don't want.

Simple as that.

Hooke and MacDonald will only loose business- if its seen as lucrative- and at a 10% cut of gross rental income- it isn't.

Its foreseeable that this will simply pressage increased agency fees for landlords- I'd be surprised if 15-20% of gross- does not become the norm.

This means- inspite of shockingly high rent levels- the landlord will get an even smaller cut than at normal.

QED- sell to owner occupiers- reduce the supply of rental properties, see what happens............

listermint

4ensic15 wrote: »

Not quite. many agents are finding management of individual units is no longer economic. 15 years ago, a tenant could be told "you lease is coming to an end in 6 weeks. Do you want to renew? New rent will be X. or landlord doesn't want to renew, you will have to move." End of story. Now a tenant can insist on part 4. Go to the RTB and hearings. Landlords have to have the legislation explained to them. You can't go back after the lease. you ctermination notice during the lease. You can't put the rent up for another 6 months. We have to charge x because of the paperwork in even trying to increase the rent. the tenant may appeal and it will cost X in the RTB. If there is one LL with 20 units it might be reasonable to explain the intricacies to them and operate accoredingly. If there are 20 with one unit each it is a massive pain. How long is the conversation going to be when the LL is told, "you apartment is vacant, it will take X amount to claean and paint it. The rent next door is X a month but you are stuck with X -400 a month because of rent capping. Remember you told us 2 years ago not to increase the rent because she was such a nice tenant?

Sorry but this is all basic agent stuff , something that other countries manage to do just fine.

If you can't work a computer then you probably shouldn't be maintaining properties because the software will pretty much do half the work for you maintaining schedules contracts emailing the clients.

Seems as if some agencies are not living in this century.

The_Conductor

listermint wrote: »

Sorry but this is all basic agent stuff , something that other countries manage to do just fine.

If you can't work a computer then you probably shouldn't be maintaining properties because the software will pretty much do half the work for you maintaining schedules contracts emailing the clients.

Seems as if some agencies are not living in this century.

Its not all computerised- indeed, while you can line up your ducks with a computer- and fire off letters, compliant with the RTA etc etc- the simple fact of the matter is there is a growing cohort of tenants who just ignore all of this. They're egged on by Threshold and some staff from the likes of the Peter McVerry Trust (both of whom do a lot of good work- in addition to dolloping out dodgy advice).

There is an increasing amount of leg work needed to manage even well performing tenancies- its not just an office job at all any more.

jamesthepeach

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not all computerised- indeed, while you can line up your ducks with a computer- and fire off letters, compliant with the RTA etc etc- the simple fact of the matter is there is a growing cohort of tenants who just ignore all of this. They're egged on by Threshold and some staff from the likes of the Peter McVerry Trust (both of whom do a lot of good work- in addition to dolloping out dodgy advice).

There is an increasing amount of leg work needed to manage even well performing tenancies- its not just an office job at all any more.

Im a small time landlord and have even decided that there are too many hoops and potential pitfalls in renting now.

I have sold one property and doing airbnb via an agent with​ the other one because of this.

I wouldn't manage property for anyone else for any amount of money with the way it is now.

I see agents moving to airbnb managers en mass very soon too.

4ensic15

listermint wrote: »

Sorry but this is all basic agent stuff , something that other countries manage to do just fine.

If you can't work a computer then you probably shouldn't be maintaining properties because the software will pretty much do half the work for you maintaining schedules contracts emailing the clients.

Seems as if some agencies are not living in this century.

That is basic administration. That is not where the problem is. The problem is with the amount of time consumed by keeping up to date with legislation, keeping the landlords up to date and dealing with the RTB. None of that can be done with a computer.

murphaph

The_Conductor wrote: »

I imagine its the maintenance aspect- its easier to keep an electrician or a plumber on call- for a large development of 200 units- than it is for 200 units scattered hither and thither around a county. Its also easier to get sign-off on repairs etc. It would also be a lot more convenient for tenancy management purposes etc.

Yep. This is why driving small scale LLs out of the sector will reduce supply overall. The REITs are also not interested in owning houses or small apartment blocks in provincial towns and villages. Rural Ireland can absolutely forget about having a supply of rental stock if small scale LLs are driven out, so people who can't buy in rural Ireland will move to the cities to rent, further pressurising prices.

Driving small scale LLs out is a reckless move.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

Yeah, we really need more vulture funds.... :rolleyes:

A really misleading term. They buy at low prices and maximise their return. Basic business.

beauf

Augeo wrote: »

A really misleading term. They buy at low prices and maximise their return. Basic business.

If there was a shortage for rentals for wealthy people that would be no problem.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

If there was a shortage for rentals for wealthy people that would be no problem.

The shortage of rentals is not the fault of the "vulture funds".
Supply and demand.

Why would a shortage of rentals for wealthy people not be a problem?

TheDoc

GGTrek wrote: »

*************************
I shall tell you what I have done: there was no gravy train for me, I used to keep most of my tenancies below market rate, in good shape and paid my taxes and expected the tenants to reciprocate by not breaching leases and take care of the properties. Obviously there was no reciprocation from (most) tenants who could not care less (and this type of tenant has received termination notices either for breach of lease or part 4 termination).

But that's not what I mean in terms of what have you done. But maybe you touched on it yourself, outlining the representative body you mentioned are a bit toothless, and is a bit of a talking shop.

Like I said I'm just playing devils advocate. Not having a swipe. You're outlining what you feel is the standard by which good landlords should be judged, and I'm not disagreeing, you on the surface taking you at face value look to be one of the good ones.

But you also seem to be someone who runs/owns/operates a number of properties. We don't need to go into specifics, you can say you only ever broke even, or maybe you ground a bit of profit. Whatever. Point is you are a business effectively. You're providing a service to customers, ie your tenants.

I'm one of those past tenants who can see things from both sides, like I can in most situations. And while there is a narrative developing of "government screwed us" there needs to be acceptance that this happened because there was no evidence of landlords displaying self regulation or control. There was a fractured representative instead of an empowered one with strength in numbers that could lobby and negotiate and discuss.

Again I only say this as someone who has done this sort of work before, and it's something that people can spot a mile away. And I guess its one of the issues with such a high number of single property or low volume property landlords. Everyone looks out for themselves and abides by their own standards. Some of which are high, some of which are not.

While it's so abundantly obvious this needed to happen sooner, as now the heavy legislation has come barrelling down, it's not too late. Landlords need to get their **** together. Need to either all rally around an existing body, or create a new one. A body that will represent your interests in Leinster House, and become a collaborate party in legislation and policy.

As pointed out by Conductor and others, we have a high number of single property landlords, and them all selling up will cause problems. Do the government know this will happen? Does the Minister for Housing know why this legislation is tough for landlords?

Importantly, the minster just makes headline, keynote policy. The real cogs of legislation and negotiations happens with his civil servants, senior ones, in his/her department.

There should be a representative body for landlords that has vast numbers behind it in support, that the body does accurately reflect that of landlords and that it is not a talking shop, but staffed by experienced people who can bring agendas or issues to the Department and it's contacts, and for their to be dialogue.

If the fractured approach continues, its just easier for the Department and Government to make high level policy without "real" consultation, and basically entertain the fractured groups, letters and correspondence, but ultimately ignore it as it's exactly that, a fractured approach.

Can't go into the specifics, but remember a meeting with a Department with senior civil servants and advisors, where one of the exec of the group I was with, seeing we were getting stonewalled a bit (a Junior minister in said department trying to make a name for himself with damaging legislation) just dropped a "Well look at the end of the day you are a legislators, and we are just here representing about eleven thousand voters. You go ahead with what you think is best and I'm sure come elections our members will do the same" Our meetings took a drastically different turn going forward, including the Junior minister in question attending. Just an example.

beauf

Augeo wrote: »

The shortage of rentals is not the fault of the "vulture funds".
Supply and demand.

Why would a shortage of rentals for wealthy people not be a problem?

The fault no. Does it exacerbate the problem. More than likely. They move the price point upwards.

Wealthy people are not restricted by cost.

Our main shortage is in affordable housing. Our economic policies are primarily aimed at increasing investment in Ireland. However that has a impact on affordable housing.

The_Conductor

TheDoc wrote: »

There should be a representative body for landlords that has vast numbers behind it in support, that the body does accurately reflect that of landlords and that it is not a talking shop, but staffed by experienced people who can bring agendas or issues to the Department and it's contacts, and for their to be dialogue.

The IPOA tried to take up this mantle- but got referred to the Competition Authority as it was deemed anti-competitive for landlords to try to work together........

The government really wants its cake and to eat it- but at the same time- they want to have at least some landlords around- so they have a bogeyman they can blame the ills of the sector on.

Its divide and conquer at its finest.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

Our main shortage is in affordable housing. Our economic policies are primarily aimed at increasing investment in Ireland. However that has a impact on affordable housing.

We don't have a single sector in which you can hold up a placard and say- the biggest issue is (social housing or whatever). We have shortages across absolutely all sectors- arguably, the greatest constraint, and the sector identified by the CSO as containing most household units living in inappropriate accommodation- are owner occupiers who bought between 2002 and 2007- and whose circumstances have changed, however, they're not in a position to sell and move elsewhere. So we get unusual stories occasionally hitting the headlines- a family of 7 living in a 2 bed apartment, turned down for assistance, because they're owner occupiers- or the case in Galway- of a family of 6 living in a car- because they let their sole property to tenant as it no longer suited their needs- but got kicked out of the property they were renting- when their own tenant stopped paying rent and they were unable to evict them....... The local authority eventually were guilted into providing accommodation for them in Renmore last week- however, they doesn't do anything for their overholding tenant (who apparently has been advised by Threshold to stay as long as they like).

The whole system is a mess- you can't just say the main problem is a lack of affordable housing- the main problem is a lack of housing, period.

beauf

I don't agree.

I think the main problem IS those who are homeless.
That some one is stuck in unsuitable but safe housing is a lesser issue.

The problem has to be sorted from the bottom up. Well if we are a compassionate society. Perhaps we want to move to the US model. Just make people homeless and turn a blind eye.


A lot of the issues for Landlords is the Govt has outsourced a lot of social and low cost housing on to private Landlords, with any of the controls to manage it.
So the LL picks up all the cost and risk and hassle and stress. All the while reducing the profitability of the business. Which is why the vulture funds come and and go for the high end.

TheDoc

The_Conductor wrote: »

The IPOA tried to take up this mantle- but got referred to the Competition Authority as it was deemed anti-competitive for landlords to try to work together........

The government really wants its cake and to eat it- but at the same time- they want to have at least some landlords around- so they have a bogeyman they can blame the ills of the sector on.

Its divide and conquer at its finest.

Is this decision being contested? Because that is ridiculous and basically a clear attempt to ensure the sector remains fractured and divided.

Pretty much every sector I can think of has a lobbying group, think tank, or organisation that operates as a representative body and a collective voice when it comes to government lobbying/consultation.

Only part of one recently as part of the plain pack cigarettes initiative on behalf of retail. While there isn't a definitive representative body there either, there are a number of bodies, that come together collectively for things like this and while the discussions were fruitless as the Minister wanted to forge a legacy, the other side of the table were under no illusions about the potential fallout.

jamesthepeach

TheDoc wrote: »

Is this decision being contested? Because that is ridiculous and basically a clear attempt to ensure the sector remains fractured and divided.

Pretty much every sector I can think of has a lobbying group, think tank, or organisation that operates as a representative body and a collective voice when it comes to government lobbying/consultation.

Only part of one recently as part of the plain pack cigarettes initiative on behalf of retail. While there isn't a definitive representative body there either, there are a number of bodies, that come together collectively for things like this and while the discussions were fruitless as the Minister wanted to forge a legacy, the other side of the table were under no illusions about the potential fallout.

Their balls have been cut off and they are cowering in the corner terrified of doing what their members pay them to do. Anyone who pays ipoa membership from now on is a fool.
It's money for nothing.

GGTrek

The IPOA should have the courtesy of answering emails or returning phone calls from landlords enquiring about the changing legislation and benefits of membership.

I do agree that they should have put up a big fight this past time and involved the media.

I am not sure on why they are so terrified of taking on the government and its bureaucrats, if they had run a campaign for funds to challenge the RTA 2016 and take to court the overzealous "Competition and Consumer Protection Commission" authority I would have gladly contributed. I have a suspicion that some of the people in its committee might have a conflict of interest.

To go back to the topic, if it was a serious organization they could provide to their members proper help with the red tape, discounted legal advice, help fund test legal cases at the RTB appeal tribunal, Tax Appeals Commission and then at the High Court if necessary, lobby the government (instead of just sending a letter during public consultations that is totally ignored, which I could do myself) provide vetted contractors, provide vetted lettings agents, ...

What they do for landlords is just posting some bog-standard notices in their website which you can download from the RTB website: pathetic. Their website has not been properly updated for years.

We go back to square one, the IPOA nees to show some teeth to the Irish govvie and the communist TDs, before they are taken seriously. In any case even if there were a functioning landlords association, the non-REITs landlord would always be at a big disadvantage, that is why the only long term solution in my view for medium sized landlords is to pool the properties and setup REITs, where the landlords that contributed the properties to the corporate entity rotate their roles in the boards of directors of the REIT and a professional property manager is hired to run day to day operations. Contributing the properties to the corporate entity could be feasible and tax efficient as soon as CGT exemptions rules kick-in. The deep barriers I see are that the landlords would have to give up their independence (their properties could be sold when inside the corporate entity) and probably many of them would not trust handing over the day to day management to a third party or having to submit to majority voting, so I see a lot of complications here.