Media: Landlords call for an end to 'Illegal Rent Control'

4ensic15

Lux23 wrote: »

Are you for real?

You had better believe it.

DubCount

4ensic15 wrote: »

Up to a few years ago each pub had its own prices set by the government. One pub could charge more than another. There was a prices commission and inspectors were employed to go around checking. LLs are just going to have to accept that they are hated by all but non landlords. The begrudgers will not be satisfied until the Poor Law returns and the workhouses are filled with former landlords with their mouths stained green from eating grass.

LOL :D:D

I don't recall differentiated price controls on pubs - what legislation brought that in?

As I make my way to the workhouse, with my grass stained mouth, I shall be filled with remorse for being an evil landlord. I might even stop off at the Dail to be pelted by rotten tomatoes by the passers by. I'm sure the vast majority of people will think I deserve it.

Mind you, my former tenants will be enjoying their spacious and luxurious housing provided free of charge by the government, and paid for by the taxes from my landlord business......oh wait......make that a significant oil reserve yet to be discovered somewhere in Leitrim. They wont have to worry where they are going to live as I live out the end of my days in the workhouse.

Come the revolution.........

the_syco

DubCount wrote: »

LOL :D:D

I don't recall differentiated price controls on pubs - what legislation brought that in?

I think "Happy Hour" was a way around it?

DubCount wrote: »

Come the revolution.........

When it comes, the only losers will be the ones that wanted it, as the smaller landlords will have left the market, and the REITs won't care that you can't pay the bills and will evict you.

4ensic15

DubCount wrote: »

LOL :D:D

I don't recall differentiated price controls on pubs - what legislation brought that in?

As I make my way to the workhouse, with my grass stained mouth, I shall be filled with remorse for being an evil landlord. I might even stop off at the Dail to be pelted by rotten tomatoes by the passers by. I'm sure the vast majority of people will think I deserve it.

Mind you, my former tenants will be enjoying their spacious and luxurious housing provided free of charge by the government, and paid for by the taxes from my landlord business......oh wait......make that a significant oil reserve yet to be discovered somewhere in Leitrim. They wont have to worry where they are going to live as I live out the end of my days in the workhouse.

Come the revolution.........

Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pubs-face-freeforall-back-lash-over-prices-26093770.html

Lux23

The Competition Act came in a year later so would imagine that was the end of that.

sondagefaux

Lux23 wrote: »

Are you for real?

He's right. I've already posted links to a book discussing the law which allowed price controls. The law wasn't abolished until 2007. In 2000, price controls on drinks in pubs, hotels and restaurants were introduced. You might not be old enough to remember them, but they did exist.

The_Conductor

sondagefaux wrote: »

He's right. I've already posted links to a book discussing the law which allowed price controls. The law wasn't abolished until 2007. In 2000, price controls on drinks in pubs, hotels and restaurants were introduced. You might not be old enough to remember them, but they did exist.

However- the same prices applied in all pubs- it was not the case that a cohort of pubs were stuck charging abnormally low prices to punters- at a level below that of their competing businesses.

I'm old enough to remember the price controls- unfortunately........

sondagefaux

The_Conductor wrote: »

However- the same prices applied in all pubs- it was not the case that a cohort of pubs were stuck charging abnormally low prices to punters- at a level below that of their competing businesses.

I'm old enough to remember the price controls- unfortunately........

What's an 'abnormally low price'? I would have thought being cheaper than your competitors would be a good thing, especially in a business that often competes on price.

4ensic15

sondagefaux wrote: »

He's right. I've already posted links to a book discussing the law which allowed price controls. The law wasn't abolished until 2007. In 2000, price controls on drinks in pubs, hotels and restaurants were introduced. You might not be old enough to remember them, but they did exist.

There were price controls before that. In the time of big inflation in the 70's the government attempted to control it by way of maximum price orders and price freezes. It was often the case that individual pubs were stuck charging less that others.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1991111400008?opendocument

DubCount

sondagefaux wrote: »

What's an 'abnormally low price'? I would have thought being cheaper than your competitors would be a good thing, especially in a business that often competes on price.

There are a number of interesting links in this thread relating to price controls. Some of the references go back to a time I was more concerned with my ABC book than price controls on the pint of plain

There are certainly some echoes of what is imposed on the property market today with some of the historical examples referenced. However, I think the current property price controls do leave landlords with an "abnormal low price" which goes beyond the historical examples.

When price controls were introduced in the drinks industry, it was into a market that was not already under a form of price controls. Landlords were restricted on applying rent increases under the "2 year review" period restrictions. So when RPZ was introduced, Landlords did not have their "current preferred pricing" in place when the Price controls took effect.

Prior to the introduction of property price controls, Landlords applied lower rates to known longstanding tenants. Vintners charge the same price for every price to every customer. This means landlords are left with the problem of having "preferred pricing" for longstanding tenants, being forced to be applied to new tenants, and that was not an issue for vintners.

jamesthepeach

DubCount wrote: »

There are a number of interesting links in this thread relating to price controls. Some of the references go back to a time I was more concerned with my ABC book than price controls on the pint of plain

There are certainly some echoes of what is imposed on the property market today with some of the historical examples referenced. However, I think the current property price controls do leave landlords with an "abnormal low price" which goes beyond the historical examples.

When price controls were introduced in the drinks industry, it was into a market that was not already under a form of price controls. Landlords were restricted on applying rent increases under the "2 year review" period restrictions. So when RPZ was introduced, Landlords did not have their "current preferred pricing" in place when the Price controls took effect.

Prior to the introduction of property price controls, Landlords applied lower rates to known longstanding tenants. Vintners charge the same price for every price to every customer. This means landlords are left with the problem of having "preferred pricing" for longstanding tenants, being forced to be applied to new tenants, and that was not an issue for vintners.

McGowan's had a happy hour when price controls were introduced, so they were stuck selling Guinness at 50p a pint when the other pubs were charging £2 a pint.
Just kidding, but you get the idea.

murphaph

jamesthepeach wrote: »

McGowan's had a happy hour when price controls were introduced, so they were stuck selling Guinness at 50p a pint when the other pubs were charging £2 a pint.
Just kidding, but you get the idea.

Yep. That is laughable but actually exactly what happened at xmas time. You couldn't make it up...punished for keeping rent low for a good tenant. Forced to offer this low rate to anyone who might come along after the current tenant is long gone.

wordofwarning

4ensic15 wrote: »

Up to a few years ago each pub had its own prices set by the government. One pub could charge more than another. There was a prices commission and inspectors were employed to go around checking. LLs are just going to have to accept that they are hated by all but non landlords. The begrudgers will not be satisfied until the Poor Law returns and the workhouses are filled with former landlords with their mouths stained green from eating grass.

You are correct, that price controls used to be the norm in a lot of industries. A lot of housing in the US was rent controlled. Groceries in the UK was rent controlled etc etc.

Over the last 100 years, our understanding of economics have improved hugely. Look at the Great Depression, were Governments and Central Banks literally had no clue how to manage or steer an economy. In 2008, when the arse fell out of the US economy, rates were slashed, there was QE etc. The economy recovered more rapidly than the great recession.

Price caps or rent controls were removed, as economists and policy makers realised that instead of protecting consumers, they were worse off as goods were supplied. Price controls is one of the most studied topics in economics and one of the few topics that most economists agree is a failure.

When housing was rent controlled in the US, the landlords spent no money on the properties as the rent was fixed. If the tenant wanted the apartment painted or the kitchen changed, the answer was no as they would get more rent. Tenants stayed longer in the housing than normal

We had price controls in the past, but removed them when we realised that they did not work.

Claw Hammer

wordofwarning wrote: »

You are correct, that price controls used to be the norm in a lot of industries. A lot of housing in the US was rent controlled. Groceries in the UK was rent controlled etc etc.

Over the last 100 years, our understanding of economics have improved hugely. Look at the Great Depression, were Governments and Central Banks literally had no clue how to manage or steer an economy. In 2008, when the arse fell out of the US economy, rates were slashed, there was QE etc. The economy recovered more rapidly than the great recession.

Price caps or rent controls were removed, as economists and policy makers realised that instead of protecting consumers, they were worse off as goods were supplied. Price controls is one of the most studied topics in economics and one of the few topics that most economists agree is a failure.

When housing was rent controlled in the US, the landlords spent no money on the properties as the rent was fixed. If the tenant wanted the apartment painted or the kitchen changed, the answer was no as they would get more rent. Tenants stayed longer in the housing than normal

We had price controls in the past, but removed them when we realised that they did not work.

Maybe so, but price controls are a matter for the government. Just because economists don't think they are a good idea doesn't mean that the government cant impose price controls. This discussion is about the legality of price controls, not the merits of them. The reality is that there were price controls before and there are still price controls. The clamour by TDs for their towns to be made RPZs shows the way the wind is blowing. There are more votes from tenants than from landlords. Landlords and builders are being blamed for causing the housing shortage and they will have to accept that the time limt will be extended and they will never get proper rent.

jamesthepeach

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Maybe so, but price controls are a matter for the government. Just because economists don't think they are a good idea doesn't mean that the government cant impose price controls. This discussion is about the legality of price controls, not the merits of them. The reality is that there were price controls before and there are still price controls. The clamour by TDs for their towns to be made RPZs shows the way the wind is blowing. There are more votes from tenants than from landlords. Landlords and builders are being blamed for causing the housing shortage and they will have to accept that the time limt will be extended and they will never get proper rent.

You are right.
I decided it was easier to just get out tbh.

The_Conductor

jamesthepeach wrote: »

You are right.
I decided it was easier to just get out tbh.

Plenty of people with a similar viewpoint.
Given the current strength of the housing market- and the fact that we are incrementally heading towards the sustainable equilibrium building point (said to be 25k per annum units)- there is a lot to be said for the viewpoint that now is a good time to divest. The second hand market in Dublin- is already stagnating- its a reasonable assumption that this will spread nationally- perhaps in the next 12-18 months.

jamesthepeach

The_Conductor wrote: »

Plenty of people with a similar viewpoint.
Given the current strength of the housing market- and the fact that we are incrementally heading towards the sustainable equilibrium building point (said to be 25k per annum units)- there is a lot to be said for the viewpoint that now is a good time to divest. The second hand market in Dublin- is already stagnating- its a reasonable assumption that this will spread nationally- perhaps in the next 12-18 months.

Definitely no upside to me to me to staying in.
I got a great price for one property and was thinking about putting the other on the market and doing short term until either it sold or I just kept going.
Got a great offer from a company to rent it until next year, with an option for longer, so I went with that.
I will never to conventional letting again while under rent control. Just a money pit. Whatever you have already put into it, or anything you might put into it in the future is just wasted under rent control. You'll never recover the investment so why invest.

Also, just One delinquent tenant and you are ruined, and even whe you eventually get rid of them you'll never get that loss back while the rent is controlled going forward.

Yep, no upside at all.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

Plenty of people with a similar viewpoint.
Given the current strength of the housing market- and the fact that we are incrementally heading towards the sustainable equilibrium building point (said to be 25k per annum units)- there is a lot to be said for the viewpoint that now is a good time to divest. The second hand market in Dublin- is already stagnating- its a reasonable assumption that this will spread nationally- perhaps in the next 12-18 months.

Add in to that the first of the 7 year CGT Reliefs kicking in it might increase the number of sellers but will probably be to the detriment of rental supply. Some people will make a killing on properties bought for cash in 2012/2013.

The_Conductor

Just wondering out loud here- would installing air-con in a unit be sufficient to extinguish the controlled rent on it- or would it be insufficient........
The addition of a/c is definitely worth 200-300 to the monthly rent.

Fian

Browney7 wrote: »

Add in to that the first of the 7 year CGT Reliefs kicking in it might increase the number of sellers but will probably be to the detriment of rental supply. Some people will make a killing on properties bought for cash in 2012/2013.

I am reluctant to sell my 2 investment properties, bought in late 2014, until the 7 years have passed. they have appreciated considerably, but i am very conscious that there will be plenty of others looking to divest then as well. Lots of properties were snapped up towards the end of 2014 before the scheme expired.

Ah well, you just have to assess the risks and make a call I guess. I will certainly sell one of them as soon as I qualify for the CGT relief, the other I will probably sell as well.

pilly

The_Conductor wrote: »

Just wondering out loud here- would installing air-con in a unit be sufficient to extinguish the controlled rent on it- or would it be insufficient........
The addition of a/c is definitely worth 200-300 to the monthly rent.

The heat getting to you Conductor?

In fairness, 350 days of the year there's no need for air con in Ireland.

pilly

pilly wrote: »

The heat getting to you Conductor?

In fairness, 350 days of the year there's no need for air con in Ireland.

That's debatable, aircon will kill humidity also and prevent damp which is a big issue in Ireland. Look at how its become vital in cars for example despite people laughing at it when it first started becoming the norm here.

pilly

Alia Melodic Self-sufficient wrote: »

That's debatable, aircon will kill humidity also and prevent damp which is a big issue in Ireland. Look at how its become vital in cars for example despite people laughing at it when it first started becoming the norm here.

It's not vital in a car. Plenty of cars don't have it.

pilly

pilly wrote: »

It's not vital in a car. Plenty of cars don't have it.

Ok, not vital but very very useful and certainly top of most peoples requirements.

The vast majority of cars sold nowadays have it also.

jamesthepeach

I would pay you anything for aircon right now.
It's very good for heating too on the winter

lcwill

My big question about rent controls is - how can landlords legally choose between a hundred potential tenants all wanting a property at a below market rate?

Doesn't this open up risks of all kinds of discrimination based on gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, and make it extremely difficult for anyone other than the perfect tenant to find somewhere to live?

The_Conductor

lcwill wrote: »

My big question about rent controls is - how can landlords legally choose between a hundred potential tenants all wanting a property at a below market rate?

Doesn't this open up risks of all kinds of discrimination based on gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, and make it extremely difficult for anyone other than the perfect tenant to find somewhere to live?

Beauty parade.
There are a long and bewildering list of ways a tenant could seek to sway a landlord- which are not included on the list of grounds for discrimination.

E.g.

A tenant could offer a year's rent upfront
Or 6-12 month rent as a deposit
Or sign up to a deep-clean from a named company
etc etc

Most common approach for tenant who want to stand out from the crowd now- is to increase the number of month's rent as a deposit- anything between 3 and 6 is becoming quite common (anything over 6 is unusual- but some multinationals are paying a year upfront to guarantee a property for their staff).

I.e. deposits are the new discriminatory factor.

It was always highly unusual that Ireland and the UK only had a standard one month deposit- this has now, by and large, been abandoned (in both Ireland and the UK)- other than in cases where a landlord has very little interest from prospective tenants in a property, and is desperate to find a tenant.

jamesthepeach

The_Conductor wrote: »

Beauty parade.
There are a long and bewildering list of ways a tenant could seek to sway a landlord- which are not included on the list of grounds for discrimination.

E.g.

A tenant could offer a year's rent upfront
Or 6-12 month rent as a deposit
Or sign up to a deep-clean from a named company
etc etc

Most common approach for tenant who want to stand out from the crowd now- is to increase the number of month's rent as a deposit- anything between 3 and 6 is becoming quite common (anything over 6 is unusual- but some multinationals are paying a year upfront to guarantee a property for their staff).

I.e. deposits are the new discriminatory factor.

It was always highly unusual that Ireland and the UK only had a standard one month deposit- this has now, by and large, been abandoned (in both Ireland and the UK)- other than in cases where a landlord has very little interest from prospective tenants in a property, and is desperate to find a tenant.

When I was cleaning my apartment at the end of the tenancy I had about 10 people knock on the window asking me if it was for rent.
I said not anymore but most of them persisted and offered all sorts of I would rent it to them. A couple offered to pay for all repairs that were needed throughout their tenancy too.

Not that I am renting out property again, but what would away me is an email with a "property CV" in it. Last three landlords, work refs, bank details, that you always paid your rent on the date due, 3 to 6 month deposit. All the stuff that they think someone is about to give them total control over a very expensive asset would want to know. Then you could choose the ones for call back after reading these CVS.

Tbh it's still not enough for me to go back, but it might be for some people.

I've decided if I am.lettingnin future it will be to companies only.
Perhaps agents might even start companies that rent property en mass and then sublet to their own set of tenants. Who knows where it's going to go. Certainly unworkable at the moment with rents locked below market rate, thus ensuring no profit will be made long term.

L1011

pilly wrote: »

It's not vital in a car. Plenty of cars don't have it.

Once you've had it you're unlikely to go back. Miserable without. The dehumidification should be enough to endear people to it Ireland, be it a car or a house.

jamesthepeach

L1011 wrote: »

Once you've had it you're unlikely to go back. Miserable without. The dehumidification should be enough to endear people to it Ireland, be it a car or a house.

Also it increases the value of said car when moving it on. Car rental.companies also charge more for air con.