Media: Rents at all-time high, supply all-time low - RTE

maninasia

The problem is the lack of.houses and apartments , it's nonsense to think that swithicng between sales or rentals of the same properties will make any difference.

Too many people , not enough housing.

Wesser

https://touch.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/grand-canal-dock/grand-canal-square-grand-canal-dock-dublin-1707869


Check out this one bed place for 3300 a month !!! For a one bed!!! Fixtures and fittings in it look really cheap. Crazy stuff!!! Who the hell has 3300 a month!!!

Cuddlesworth

Wesser wrote: »

https://touch.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/grand-canal-dock/grand-canal-square-grand-canal-dock-dublin-1707869


Check out this one bed place for 3300 a month !!! For a one bed!!! Fixtures and fittings in it look really cheap. Crazy stuff!!! Who the hell has 3300 a month!!!

Companies who have a person working 4-5 days a week and flying them home at the weekend. 36k a year to a finance company is simply a blip on the expense account.

pilly

Wesser wrote: »

https://touch.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/grand-canal-dock/grand-canal-square-grand-canal-dock-dublin-1707869


Check out this one bed place for 3300 a month !!! For a one bed!!! Fixtures and fittings in it look really cheap. Crazy stuff!!! Who the hell has 3300 a month!!!

It's a ridiculous price but I've been inside one of those and they are a very high standard of finish. Some of the balconies get great sunshine too. Depends on where it's located.

zell12

Latest in 2018: Rents reach all-time high nationwide

Average rent nationwide are €1261pm
This is €232pm more than the highest level reached in 2008.

Dublin rents are now €1875pm
This is 30% higher than 2008.

The_Conductor

zell12 wrote: »

Latest in 2018: Rents reach all-time high nationwide

Average rent nationwide are €1261pm
This is €232pm more than the highest level reached in 2008.

Dublin rents are now €1875pm
This is 30% higher than 2008.

Note- this is the rent levels for new tenancies- and in a Dublin context- over 70% of the tenancies registered with the RTB are for properties which have not had tenancies registered against them previously (including several entire apartment blocks and a whole estate in Blanchardstown). I.e. the rent level- is predominantly for new units. No figures on the numbers of properties which are being removed from the rental market. Also- no report on the rent levels for pre-existing tenancies- though a DAFT commentary suggests their rent increases are averaging 1.7-1.8% (i.e. not all landlords are applying the 4% per annum rent increase that they are entitled to- in the RTBs)

The rent levels being discussed- are for new- not pre-existing- tenancies. This salient point is overlooked by a lot of commentators.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

The rent levels being discussed- are for new- not pre-existing- tenancies. This salient point is overlooked by a lot of commentators.

It may not meany every tenant or tenacy is paying the rent but it clearly illustrates that the answer to the question "if I was looking to rent tomorrow, what could I expect to have to pay" is showing an ever higher sum. The rent control was merely an attempt to mask the symptoms and is making things worse for a significant number of tenants.

murphaph

4ensic15 wrote: »

It may not meany every tenant or tenacy is paying the rent but it clearly illustrates that the answer to the question "if I was looking to rent tomorrow, what could I expect to have to pay" is showing an ever higher sum. The rent control was merely an attempt to mask the symptoms and is making things worse for a significant number of tenants.

It is. I was lucky that my tenants who were paying way below market rate left voluntarily in February and I could (quite legally IMO) increase the rent significantly to market rate (in my case the previous tenants were originally on rent supplement, then forced into RAS and the lease explicitly stated that they only had a 2 bed need and the council always insisted on paying no more than the 2 bed rate (all documented) so with the new tenancy I was able to claim a significant improvement in the accommodation offered (3 bed) compared to previously. I will never allow myself to be caught with a rent below the absolute maximum allowed from now on. This is the direct result of the RPZ legislation. Should never have included new tenancies in rent control. That was the step too far.

lcwill

I'm increasing 4% a year on my properties until the RPZ is removed or I get to market rates.

I've told my agent just to automate it so I don't have to remember to tell them every year.

Then I'll go back to my previous approach of only increasing sitting tenants' rent every four years or so, and being happy to leave rent below market rates in order to retain good tenants.

Feel a bit bad about it, but not bad enough to risk reducing the value of my investments because of a terrible policy.

4ensic15

lcwill wrote: »

I've told my agent just to automate it so I don't have to remember to tell them every year.

How do you automate it?

Eric Cartman

4ensic15 wrote: »

How do you automate it?

the assistant in the estate agent creates a re-occuring calendar event for the renewal date every year and sends the tenants a letter which he/she has templated from the previous year, then the tenants pay more money.

4ensic15

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the assistant in the estate agent creates a re-occuring calendar event for the renewal date every year and sends the tenants a letter which he/she has templated from the previous year, then the tenants pay more money.

Don't the tenants have to be given comparators?

GGTrek

4ensic15 wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the assistant in the estate agent creates a re-occuring calendar event for the renewal date every year and sends the tenants a letter which he/she has templated from the previous year, then the tenants pay more money.

Don't the tenants have to be given comparators?

They do, it is a major pain in the a... For the two long term tenants I have still got I loose almost a full day to prepare a 4% notice of rent increase to value below market with the three comparators that respects the massive amount of regulation (8 pages in double copy) and various RTB tribunals niceties. It has become a joke on landlords. All my time is unpaid, then these two last tenants had the silliness to ask why they both received section 34(b) termination notices for next year. I just told them: stupid Irish politicians are the cause!

belfe

lcwill wrote: »

I'm increasing 4% a year on my properties until the RPZ is removed or I get to market rates.

I've told my agent just to automate it so I don't have to remember to tell them every year.

Then I'll go back to my previous approach of only increasing sitting tenants' rent every four years or so, and being happy to leave rent below market rates in order to retain good tenants.

Feel a bit bad about it, but not bad enough to risk reducing the value of my investments because of a terrible policy.

Then, rents are increasing like they were increasing before the RPZ, but now the goverment is somehow responsible?

Let's see what happen in a couple of years. I know that nobody think about it on the peak, but many companies are complaining about shortage of skilled workers, I know the IT case, Dublin was the most attractive european city for an IT worker when I came in... but is not anymore. People just don't want to come and pay the irrational rents, and if they want to pay an irrational rent for living in a place with people and cultural offer, very common choice for young people, they go to the big cities like London or Paris, not to Dublin. When peak is over and this is a problem, please don't blame the government about it. They tried to regulate it and they failed, but the prices are 100% controlled by the landlords in this market.

The Student

belfe wrote: »

Then, rents are increasing like they were increasing before the RPZ, but now the goverment is somehow responsible?

Let's see what happen in a couple of years. I know that nobody think about it on the peak, but many companies are complaining about shortage of skilled workers, I know the IT case, Dublin was the most attractive european city for an IT worker when I came in... but is not anymore. People just don't want to come and pay the irrational rents, and if they want to pay an irrational rent for living in a place with people and cultural offer, very common choice for young people, they go to the big cities like London or Paris, not to Dublin. When peak is over and this is a problem, please don't blame the government about it. They tried to regulate it and they failed, but the prices are 100% controlled by the landlords in this market.

All the govt have to do is extend the rent a room scheme to landlords and the rents will fall. The higher the tax the higher rents will go.

Villa05

The Student wrote:

All the govt have to do is extend the rent a room scheme to landlords and the rents will fall. The higher the tax the higher rents will go.

Rents will not fall when supply is the issue.
Ref: tax

Should be a standard rate of tax on all rental income. We currently have a situation where one landlord is paying over 50% and others are paying close to 0% set a rate in the middle and create an equal competitive market.

To counter balance there should be a property tax that covers the cost of sustaining infrastructure and services to homeowners

alias no.9

4ensic15 wrote: »

It may not meany every tenant or tenacy is paying the rent but it clearly illustrates that the answer to the question "if I was looking to rent tomorrow, what could I expect to have to pay" is showing an ever higher sum. The rent control was merely an attempt to mask the symptoms and is making things worse for a significant number of tenants.

The high rent being asked for new units to the market is a symptom of rent control. Any new unit to the rental market in an RPZ is asking top dollar because future rents will be tied to the initial rent, it's the only time it can be priced to a market rate.

In the instance that landlords have a property to let and are tied at a below market rent, they're not advertising it on Daft or the like, it's not practical to deal with the volume of inquiries, it's all gone to word of mouth and personal networks so there's an artificial scarcity on the open market. As a result of this, landlords bringing new properties to the market as well as the cohort of landlords prepared to flout the RPZ legislation are getting away with asking for even higher rents than they could in the instance of all landlords being allowed move to a general market rent when re-letting properties.

The RPZ legislation has been reasonably good for sitting tenants as long as the landlords are not exiting the market. It's been good for the Landlords who were squeezing the last drop from their tenants prior to introduction. Anybody needing to find a new place has been thrown under the bus.

maninasia

It's funny that one lad is complaining that it takes him a WHOLE day's work to get 4% extra for the year income. He can do this every year for a 4% increase guaranteed and it's somehow a pain in the arse.

Graces7

tinkerbell wrote: »

The same threshold that advise people to overhold? LOL.

In all my years renting Threshold have never given such advice ; quite the contrary.

The_Conductor

maninasia wrote: »

It's funny that one lad is complaining that it takes him a WHOLE day's work to get 4% extra for the year income. He can do this every year for a 4% increase guaranteed and it's somehow a pain in the arse.

Its probably not his day job- he probably has to take time out from whatever he normally does- to get his three comparators, do the paperwork, submit the notices etc etc. And- it doesn't how long or how much trouble it is for a landlord to do anything- it isn't an allowable cost- if he/she was running any other business- their time could be enumerated and charged to the business.

I sort of like the idea higher up in this thread- where someone suggested expanding the rent-a-room scheme to include small scale landlords. They could have a gross income of 14k from a unit- and not have any taxable income- but once they go over this threshold- its all taxable.

We already have 'rent-contol' (or rent-assurance as the Minister likes to call it). Having the reciprochal- income assurance for a small scale landlord- where the 14k limit (I imagine it would be linked to the region the property is in- though this may be too difficult to administer)- would mean rents would not increase above this 14k for those with one unit- perhaps add 7k per unit there-after- so if a landlord had 2 units he could earn 21k, 3 units 28k- its progressively dragging the average down- and it would encourage someone with a string of units to divest of most of them- perhaps keep a small core- that they could keep a tax free rental income from (say 35k from 4- sounds reasonable)...........

I'd also strongly advocate abolishing debt costs as an allowable cost for tax reasons- for absolutely everyone- looking at the new rules in the US- and expanding them further- so no-one, no business- can use debt to shelter income from tax. If you want to borrow money to buy houses or apartments- off you go- but you're not going to shelter the income with the debt that you've just taken on. This whole notion of the cost of debt being tax deductible- for anyone- doesn't matter what the business is- for anyone at all- is cat- and should be abolished as soon as humanely possible. If businesses can't afford the cost of carrying debt- well, perhaps they shouldn't borrow at the outset- and the manner in which debt is being abused by businesses- has been well reported on by most of the main economic media- The Economist have at least 1 issue annually addressing it.

We can't have one rule applicable to one group of people- or businesses- and another rule applicable to others...........

Sarn

Graces7 wrote: »

In all my years renting Threshold have never given such advice ; quite the contrary.

If I recall correctly, an RTE documentary had a recording of someone from Threshold advising someone to overhold. Memory is fuzzy, but perhaps someone else remembers.

The_Conductor

Sarn wrote: »

If I recall correctly, an RTE documentary had a recording of someone from Threshold advising someone to overhold. Memory is fuzzy, but perhaps someone else remembers.

Yup- it wasn't even a documentary- it was 'News-at-One' on RTE radio 1.........
Newstalk and some of the other channels pulled identical stunts.
Its not disputed- though Threshold did give further 'telephone training' to staff to try and ensure they didn't get caught out like this in future. If they get suspicious that you might be a journalist or if you're asking leading questions now- they have a script to read- where they advise you do not have any right to record them etc etc....... Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.......