Right to a house?

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Hard to know. Failure to manage the stock of social housing on a proactive basis means that cost of provision is more than a one off cost. Travelling through Limerick lately by the railway station is an apartment complex that is being renovated. They were build in the early 70's from information I recieved and had to be evacuated in the late ninety's/early noughties mostly due to anti social behaviour. The tax payer may be better off with hard nosed private sector landlords rather than local authoritie's that are unable to manage housing stock. This is not just an isolated case there are several such area's in Limerick and this is replicated accross urban Ireland. I think there is even a similar such estate in Tuam but I may have wrong information

That's true. I don't think resurrecting the previous models like Ballymun are the way to go.
I cannot see the value in money for the tax payer in the current route as compared to renting out our state owned.
Again, the thing I'm pointing out here is selling the idea of rent subsidies which go to private landlords as a social housing win is preposterous.

Good loser wrote: »

Heard the other day of a plumber (self employed) asked whether he was interested in working on a scheme of 50 houses.

He was reasonably interested but then heard it was for the Co Co. Lost interest at that - too much red tape for his liking.

How it use to work is councils would occasionally put out tenders for contractors big or small depending on the work. They would have tradesmen they would contact for maintenance work. Once registered and verified, they can be called on time and again. All they do is submit an invoice and get paid. I'm not sure why anyone would be turning down work. Maybe the boom is back?

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's true. I don't think resurrecting the previous models like Ballymun are the way to go.
I cannot see the value in money for the tax payer in the current route as compared to renting out our state owned.
Again, the thing I'm pointing out here is selling the idea of rent subsidies which go to private landlords as a social housing win is preposterous.



How it use to work is councils would occasionally put out tenders for contractors big or small depending on the work. They would have tradesmen they would contact for maintenance work. Once registered and verified, they can be called on time and again. All they do is submit an invoice and get paid. I'm not sure why anyone would be turning down work. Maybe the boom is back?

It is about managing risk. The government considers that the local Authorities are incapable of managing housing stock. this is why they are involving housing co-op etc in the provision of new houses. They consider it impossible for LA to actively manage these houses. It is uneconomical to have to replace and or completely refurbish housing stock every 20-30 years along with having high vacancy rates may for 30-50% of that turnover period.

If they build it is impossible to prevent Ballymun, Moyross, Knocknaheeny type getto's from evolving again. Where ever you have a large section of housing rented and a large section of those tenants who only carry out minimum maintenance and who see the reward for this being either a new house or a refurd it is hard to prevent these senario's developing.

The state obiviously see that private landlords are better able to manage these problem tenants than LA's can

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is about managing risk. The government considers that the local Authorities are incapable of managing housing stock. this is why they are involving housing co-op etc in the provision of new houses. They consider it impossible for LA to actively manage these houses. It is uneconomical to have to replace and or completely refurbish housing stock every 20-30 years along with having high vacancy rates may for 30-50% of that turnover period.

Refurbish? I don't believe any furniture is supplied. I know some charities will help in that area. And replace housing stock, are you suggesting they'd all be sold after 30 years? How many are sold and how often can be changed at the LA's will.
Also, let's not forget the working poor. Those who work and pay tax in need of social/affordable housing.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If they build it is impossible to prevent Ballymun, Moyross, Knocknaheeny type getto's from evolving again. Where ever you have a large section of housing rented and a large section of those tenants who only carry out minimum maintenance and who see the reward for this being either a new house or a refurd it is hard to prevent these senario's developing.

The state obiviously see that private landlords are better able to manage these problem tenants than LA's can

Again, you suggest this is all to house a minority of people with no regard for themselves or property. This is about everyone who cannot afford rent. Not merely the slim minority who allegedly, won't work want something for nothing etc. etc. The idea this is all about a minority of welfare fraudsters is wrong.

It's the private landlords problem that's why, but don't they get paid handsomely by you?

It boils down to perception. Some people would rather see people pay to private landlords with tax subsidises, than to see people pay cheap rent to the state.

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Refurbish? I don't believe any furniture is supplied. I know some charities will help in that area. And replace housing stock, are you suggesting they'd all be sold after 30 years? How many are sold and how often can be changed at the LA's will.
Also, let's not forget the working poor. Those who work and pay tax in need of social/affordable housing.



Again, you suggest this is all to house a minority of people with no regard for themselves or property. This is about everyone who cannot afford rent. Not merely the slim minority who allegedly, won't work want something for nothing etc. etc. The idea this is all about a minority of welfare fraudsters is wrong.

It's the private landlords problem that's why, but don't they get paid handsomely by you?

It boils down to perception. Some people would rather see people pay to private landlords with tax subsidises, than to see people pay cheap rent to the state.

Refurbish has nothing to do with furniture, it is an expression where a large repair job has to be undertaken on an item whether it is a car, tractor piece of machinery or in this case a house. When I talk about replacing I am talking about having to completely rebuild houses that have being damaged and neglected by tenants. The problem the state faces is that these costs may be less if it let private landlords manage the problem.

What tax subsidies do you refer to that private landlords get from the state. There was some rent reliefs in place in the late 90's and 00's but none of these have being renewed. Most were in place to encourage renewal of area's that were gone derelict or semi abandoned sites or area's of Cities and towns.

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Refurbish has nothing to do with furniture, it is an expression where a large repair job has to be undertaken on an item whether it is a car, tractor piece of machinery or in this case a house. When I talk about replacing I am talking about having to completely rebuild houses that have being damaged and neglected by tenants. The problem the state faces is that these costs may be less if it let private landlords manage the problem.

What tax subsidies do you refer to that private landlords get from the state. There was some rent reliefs in place in the late 90's and 00's but none of these have being renewed. Most were in place to encourage renewal of area's that were gone derelict or semi abandoned sites or area's of Cities and towns.

Wasn't trying to catch you out. 'Refurbish' as regards a house meant furniture in my mind.
I think 'completely rebuild' is a stretch. I know if tenants, as happens, have more than a couple of broken toilets, resulting in a need for new carpet every couple of years, the process is stopped. People take advantage but we get that in all walks. We should punish individuals not the tax payers pocket.
How can it cost more, even if the state breaks even on rents accrued verses renting out top end hotels?

I'm referring to the rent allowance the tax payer gives the tenants to meet the rates set by the private landlords. This incredibly being sold as a 'social housing' win by Murphy the other day.

James Brown

€330,000 is the average cost of building a three bedroom semi-detached house in Greater Dublin
http://www.newstalk.com/Heres-how-much-it-costs-to-build-a-house

Let's say the average cost to build a 3 bed house, taxes included is: €330,000.
Now thats a 3 bed semi. A generous estimate when the average house would be maybe 2 bed and attached. But we'll go with €330,000 per house to build, pay taxes and own to do with what you like.

If we took the current housing strategy for funds we know exist there is €5.35 billion, through a social housing strategy to build 47,000 homes.
The rest is to assist the building industry in building an average of 25,000 homes a year by 2020. None of these figures are set in stone. They are goals.

https://www.finegael.ie/our-priorities/housing-homelessness/

The flaw here is if people can't afford the prices, so what if we see more private builds? Might prices come down due to more stock? Unlikely if the tax payer is called upon to assist buyers to meet the prices set. The prices are not being set based on what people are willing to pay, they are being set by how much of a tax payer funded subsidy the buyer can get. This negates the need for a seller to lower prices due to traditional market reasons.

How many state owned builds could we get for 5.35bn, at an average build cost of 330,000? Properties owned, built and paid for by the state? Too many, more than enough by far? A ridiculous amount? Let's just cover the crises and put the change towards Garda contracts
Add to this the idea that working people will be paying rent in these state owned dwellings, based on their income, not received tax payer paid rent allowances which go to private profit, and people on welfare will be paying what they can. All of this coupled together, even if we break even, which I'd expect we'd make over time, with the 39m spend per annum on hotels decreasing over the years and no longer needing to rent privately or buy at market rates to attempt to stem the growing problems. It seems to me to be the better deal for the tax payer.

The problem is, some people don't like the idea of others getting cheaper rent then they are. Even if that rent goes back to the tax payer. They seemingly prefer tax payer money going to rent allowance so people can rent privately, because that way the perception is they are paying the same rent as everyone else.

The policies however, are designed to bolster the housing industry, even though this is not working currently.

We simply need to build enough social housing to cool the market to a price working people can afford.

It's in the tax payers interest that we seek value for money, even if the perception is that some are getting a free ride, because it will be cheaper over time than the current policy of looking to the private market as a poor stop gap.

We are buying housing at market rates to house people. We are also putting them up in hotels.

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Let's say the average cost to build a 3 bed house, taxes included is: €330,000.
Now thats a 3 bed semi. A generous estimate when the average house would be maybe 2 bed and attached. But we'll go with €330,000 per house to build, pay taxes and own to do with what you like.

If we took the current housing strategy for funds we know exist there is €5.35 billion, through a social housing strategy to build 47,000 homes.
The rest is to assist the building industry in building an average of 25,000 homes a year by 2020. None of these figures are set in stone. They are goals.

https://www.finegael.ie/our-priorities/housing-homelessness/

The flaw here is if people can't afford the prices, so what if we see more private builds? Might prices come down due to more stock? Unlikely if the tax payer is called upon to assist buyers to meet the prices set. The prices are not being set based on what people are willing to pay, they are being set by how much of a tax payer funded subsidy the buyer can get. This negates the need for a seller to lower prices due to traditional market reasons.

How many state owned builds could we get for 5.35bn, at an average build cost of 330,000? Properties owned, built and paid for by the state? Too many, more than enough by far? A ridiculous amount? Let's just cover the crises and put the change towards Garda contracts
Add to this the idea that working people will be paying rent in these state owned dwellings, based on their income, not received tax payer paid rent allowances which go to private profit, and people on welfare will be paying what they can. All of this coupled together, even if we break even, which I'd expect we'd make over time, with the 39m spend per annum on hotels decreasing over the years and no longer needing to rent privately or buy at market rates to attempt to stem the growing problems. It seems to me to be the better deal for the tax payer.

The problem is, some people don't like the idea of others getting cheaper rent then they are. Even if that rent goes back to the tax payer. They seemingly prefer tax payer money going to rent allowance so people can rent privately, because that way the perception is they are paying the same rent as everyone else.

The policies however, are designed to bolster the housing industry, even though this is not working currently.

We simply need to build enough social housing to cool the market to a price working people can afford.

It's in the tax payers interest that we seek value for money, even if the perception is that some are getting a free ride, because it will be cheaper over time than the current policy of looking to the private market as a poor stop gap.

We are buying housing at market rates to house people. We are also putting them up in hotels.

While 5.35 billion might seem a lot of money when building it is quite small amount. Give that we are building a mix of housing 1,2 and 3 bed units and even some 4 bed units. If we assume that all units are build on already land owned by the LA's and government and no land costs are involved how far would this money go. It is hard to quantify building costs so it is best maybe to look at different senario. Total refurbs will cost virtually the same as new builds.

If the average build cost was 80K/unit then we would get nearly 44K units I would imagine that in this price id not at present a realistic build price.

If the average build cost was 120K/unit then we would get nearly 30K units IMO this price range might be a tad tight for a good mix of units across the country.

If the average build cost was about 150K/unit then we would get a 23-25K units. Is this a realistic average for a good mix of 2-3 bed units with a limited amount of 1&4 bed units.

But 23-25K units will not solve the social housing issue IMO and this number of units may not be attainable because it is unlikely that all land will be available without any cost to exchequer as well as that a large part of the problem is in Dublin with its associated higher costs. As well as that you have the added cost of services. But you are leaving a hostage out there in that you are using up most if not all of available publicaly owned land banks

On an economic analysis you have to look at the two choices to see which is most economic using the private sector with all it flaws to fund capital part and government to fund the program through rent allowance or government to build the houses and which is best for the tax payer.

If the average units including land value is costing 200K what is the average rent allowance and average rent paid across the country. It is hard to get accurate figure but the national average is about 1200/month or 14.4k/year from this article
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-the-average-rent-in-each-county-in-ireland-36317785.html

I imagine that this is skewed a bit by some higher end and specialist accomodation. We could assume that average social housing rents are in the 1K bracket. Rent allowance rates are hard to assertain but these are from 2016 and will have gone up by around 15% at a guess. So is average rent allowance for a family in the 700 euro bracket

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Maximum-Rent-Limits-by-County.aspx

One thing you can guess at from this is that Council house rents returns may not even be covering the maintenance costs of the houses. I would imagine that rents are in the 50-60 euro/week for many

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Let's say the average cost to build a 3 bed house, taxes included is: €330,000.
Now thats a 3 bed semi. A generous estimate when the average house would be maybe 2 bed and attached. But we'll go with €330,000 per house to build, pay taxes and own to do with what you like.

If we took the current housing strategy for funds we know exist there is €5.35 billion, through a social housing strategy to build 47,000 homes.
The rest is to assist the building industry in building an average of 25,000 homes a year by 2020. None of these figures are set in stone. They are goals.

https://www.finegael.ie/our-priorities/housing-homelessness/

The flaw here is if people can't afford the prices, so what if we see more private builds? Might prices come down due to more stock? Unlikely if the tax payer is called upon to assist buyers to meet the prices set. The prices are not being set based on what people are willing to pay, they are being set by how much of a tax payer funded subsidy the buyer can get. This negates the need for a seller to lower prices due to traditional market reasons.

How many state owned builds could we get for 5.35bn, at an average build cost of 330,000? Properties owned, built and paid for by the state? Too many, more than enough by far? A ridiculous amount? Let's just cover the crises and put the change towards Garda contracts
Add to this the idea that working people will be paying rent in these state owned dwellings, based on their income, not received tax payer paid rent allowances which go to private profit, and people on welfare will be paying what they can. All of this coupled together, even if we break even, which I'd expect we'd make over time, with the 39m spend per annum on hotels decreasing over the years and no longer needing to rent privately or buy at market rates to attempt to stem the growing problems. It seems to me to be the better deal for the tax payer.

The problem is, some people don't like the idea of others getting cheaper rent then they are. Even if that rent goes back to the tax payer. They seemingly prefer tax payer money going to rent allowance so people can rent privately, because that way the perception is they are paying the same rent as everyone else.

The policies however, are designed to bolster the housing industry, even though this is not working currently.

We simply need to build enough social housing to cool the market to a price working people can afford.

It's in the tax payers interest that we seek value for money, even if the perception is that some are getting a free ride, because it will be cheaper over time than the current policy of looking to the private market as a poor stop gap.

We are buying housing at market rates to house people. We are also putting them up in hotels.

Practically all of the debates on housing are conducted without any references to figures/money/costs.

Above is typical. You mention a figure of €5.35 billion and an average cost of €330,000 per unit. But you don't do the division!
The maths shows 3 houses per €million capital or 3,000 houses per billion.
So €5.35 bn provides 16,500 houses. Say 5,000 per annum over 3 years or 3,000 per annum over 5 years. So €5.35 bn will not go near providing 47,000 social houses.
That's why the Govt cannot afford to build and build for no return and why they are using every trick in the book to get the private sector to pony up the properties to meet the demand.

Factor in then the scarcity of workers and builders and the developers that have been cleared out of the country.

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

While 5.35 billion might seem a lot of money when building it is quite small amount. Give that we are building a mix of housing 1,2 and 3 bed units and even some 4 bed units. If we assume that all units are build on already land owned by the LA's and government and no land costs are involved how far would this money go. It is hard to quantify building costs so it is best maybe to look at different senario. Total refurbs will cost virtually the same as new builds.

If the average build cost was 80K/unit then we would get nearly 44K units I would imagine that in this price id not at present a realistic build price.

If the average build cost was 120K/unit then we would get nearly 30K units IMO this price range might be a tad tight for a good mix of units across the country.

If the average build cost was about 150K/unit then we would get a 23-25K units. Is this a realistic average for a good mix of 2-3 bed units with a limited amount of 1&4 bed units.

But 23-25K units will not solve the social housing issue IMO and this number of units may not be attainable because it is unlikely that all land will be available without any cost to exchequer as well as that a large part of the problem is in Dublin with its associated higher costs. As well as that you have the added cost of services. But you are leaving a hostage out there in that you are using up most if not all of available publicaly owned land banks

On an economic analysis you have to look at the two choices to see which is most economic using the private sector with all it flaws to fund capital part and government to fund the program through rent allowance or government to build the houses and which is best for the tax payer.

If the average units including land value is costing 200K what is the average rent allowance and average rent paid across the country. It is hard to get accurate figure but the national average is about 1200/month or 14.4k/year from this article
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-the-average-rent-in-each-county-in-ireland-36317785.html

I imagine that this is skewed a bit by some higher end and specialist accomodation. We could assume that average social housing rents are in the 1K bracket. Rent allowance rates are hard to assertain but these are from 2016 and will have gone up by around 15% at a guess. So is average rent allowance for a family in the 700 euro bracket

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Maximum-Rent-Limits-by-County.aspx

One thing you can guess at from this is that Council house rents returns may not even be covering the maintenance costs of the houses. I would imagine that rents are in the 50-60 euro/week for many

I don't know how often an LA has to completely 'refurb' a house to the extent it costs the same as building it. Do you? It sounds like scaremongering. I've never heard of it. I'd expect in the last sixty or seventy years it's happened maybe.
We're talking about giving the tax payer breathing room with the availability of state owned rentals easing the market to an affordable extent, not giving everyone a house. Charging rent.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

Practically all of the debates on housing are conducted without any references to figures/money/costs.

Above is typical. You mention a figure of €5.35 billion and an average cost of €330,000 per unit. But you don't do the division!
The maths shows 3 houses per €million capital or 3,000 houses per billion.
So €5.35 bn provides 16,500 houses. Say 5,000 per annum over 3 years or 3,000 per annum over 5 years. So €5.35 bn will not go near providing 47,000 social houses.
That's why the Govt cannot afford to build and build for no return and why they are using every trick in the book to get the private sector to pony up the properties to meet the demand.

Factor in then the scarcity of workers and builders and the developers that have been cleared out of the country.

Because I'm not suggesting we build houses until it runs out. I have access to calculators or are you suspecting I'm avoiding the sum to hide something, after providing the figures?

That's what's happening. There's no return on rent subsidies going to landlords and first time buyer grants going to developers. All helping landlords and developers keep their prices were they like. So much for the market.

It's like this; we can give people tax payer money to rent or buy privately. Or we can rent state owned properties out, sell at a reasonable rate. This will recoup money spent over time and cool the market in the process.

We are buying homes at the market rate to rent to council tenants, spending tax money on hotels, (39m last year), paying rents to private landlords etc.
This is policy at this stage. It's necessity due to poor housing strategy. These things take time, they've had time, so one can only conclude this is the plan. The plan doesn't work.

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't know how often an LA has to completely 'refurb' a house to the extent it costs the same as building it. Do you? It sounds like scaremongering. I've never heard of it. I'd expect in the last sixty or seventy years it's happened maybe.
We're talking about giving the tax payer breathing room with the availability of state owned rentals easing the market to an affordable extent, not giving everyone a house. Charging rent.

Next time you are in Limerick go up to the railway station and go up to the right of it and look and the nice new block of apartments. AFAIK these were orginall build in the 70's empty since the mid noughties, they were in a dire state by the time they were empty. All the talk is that it was just because of the fact they were flats. Down past the market something similar, give a spin through any major urban area and go through what will be termed Council estates and have a look.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because I'm not suggesting we build houses until it runs out. I have access to calculators or are you suspecting I'm avoiding the sum to hide something, after providing the figures?

That's what's happening. There's no return on rent subsidies going to landlords and first time buyer grants going to developers. All helping landlords and developers keep their prices were they like. So much for the market.

It's like this; we can give people tax payer money to rent or buy privately. Or we can rent state owned properties out, sell at a reasonable rate. This will recoup money spent over time and cool the market in the process.

We are buying homes at the market rate to rent to council tenants, spending tax money on hotels, (39m last year), paying rents to private landlords etc.
This is policy at this stage. It's necessity due to poor housing strategy. These things take time, they've had time, so one can only conclude this is the plan. The plan doesn't work.

While I agree with you about the hotels unfortunately it is unlikely you could have a stock of houses at hand any stage to house people at a short notice. But there is little difference between giving rent to a private landlord who manages his own maintenance and having your own stock to rent. The rents will not cover the day to day maintenance and upkeep of these houses.

While agree that we have a poor housing strategy unfortunately resources are limited. The state has limited what buyers can borrow to try to cool the market, personally I disagree with mortgage interest relief but at the end of the day if it is so profitable to build houses what are developers rushing in to build houses to meet demand.

Part of the reason is the high costs of sites and I have often advocated a carrot and stick approach to this by using increased capital gains tax on development land to encourage its development. But it has not happened.

Some just can’t be helped. This is disgraceful. http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/when-tenants-choose-to-abuse-the-roof-over-their-heads-823960.html

Bass Reeves

Deleted User wrote: »

Some just can’t be helped. This is disgraceful. http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/when-tenants-choose-to-abuse-the-roof-over-their-heads-823960.html

The big thing that we hear about from advoactes for social housing is security of tenure. That Tenants have no security and cannot make decision because they may be afraid of eviction.

What annoys most people is a fairly sizable section of these tensnts are unwilling to even carry out minimal maintenance on houses that they have at reasonable rents. My minimal I mean a bit of painting, keeping the house clean and tidy and no damaging it.

I was delighted this morning to see the Government to bring back whatr were previously call council loans for housing. The loan rate is 2.5% and can be for 90% of house price. Borrow's can borrow up to 350k in Dublin,Galway and Cork and 250K accross rest of country.

https://www.rte.ie/news/enviroment/2018/0122/934974-murphy-housing-loan/

This will at least put pressure on banks to reduce lending rates.

mikep

I found this line interesting:
There are about 4,600 on the housing waiting list, according to the council’s housing chief, Valerie O’Sullivan. At a recent CIF builders’ briefing in Páirc Uí Chaoimh, Ms O’Sullivan said that “only 2,500 of that number is actively engaging with us in search of housing”.

If that is the case across the country that would imply housing lists could be almost halved, I'n my opinion if you don't have a legitimate reason (illness etc) not to engage you should be removed from the list.

Interesting article.

"Others, he says, build up their time on the housing list to get a place they really desire."

Excuse me........ what? :pac:

Sounds handy!

recedite

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I was delighted this morning to see the Government to bring back whatr were previously call council loans for housing. The loan rate is 2.5% and can be for 90% of house price. Borrow's can borrow up to 350k in Dublin,Galway and Cork and 250K accross rest of country.

https://www.rte.ie/news/enviroment/2018/0122/934974-murphy-housing-loan/

This will at least put pressure on banks to reduce lending rates.

Yes this is a very significant development. Also I see its fixed for the entire duration of the loan - up to 30 years.
They should have set it to 2% to match the ECB inflation base rate targets IMO.
Only available to first time buyers though, so it won't benefit everybody.

Jim2007

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I was delighted this morning to see the Government to bring back whatr were previously call council loans for housing.

recedite wrote: »

Yes this is a very significant development. Also I see its fixed for the entire duration of the loan - up to 30 years.

All that does is increase the number of buyers in the market and increases the price of houses in the lower end of the market.

Until Ireland adapts a more central European type housing policy with a strong emphasis on the development of proper rental market, it is just a political game.

seamus

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What annoys most people is a fairly sizable section of these tensnts are unwilling to even carry out minimal maintenance on houses that they have at reasonable rents. My minimal I mean a bit of painting, keeping the house clean and tidy and no damaging it.

And a fairly sizeable section of landlords would go crazy and withhold deposits if a tenant had the gall to do a bit of painting, hang a couple of pictures or change a light fitting.

They're two sides of the same dysfunctional market - landlords see tenants as temporary interlopers staying in their house, and tenants see landlords as cheap money-grabbers living a life of luxury.

Because we don't have the benefit of a renting "culture" as they have elsewhere, we may have to go full on crazy and put some really basic things into law - such as the right of a tenant to redecorate as they see fit provided they restore the property at the end of a tenancy, and an obligation to put deposits in an escrow account and a legal ban on any "additional" deposits made directly to the landlord.

tringle

seamus wrote: »

And a fairly sizeable section of landlords would go crazy and withhold deposits if a tenant had the gall to do a bit of painting, hang a couple of pictures or change a light fitting.
.

Our tenant painted murals on all the walls with poster paint....superheros, hearts and flowery things. It took 6 coats of paint and is still showing through. She called me to say the toaster was on fire and stained the wall and I said not to worry about it. An hour later she called wanting to know when I was buying her a new toaster as her 4 year old was waiting on his lunch.

I have no problem with making small changes or even breaking things but you must replace them, leave the house as you found it.

We rented a house and the immersion went, the only source of hot water in a house with 3 babies. We bought a new one a installed it and out of courtesy told the landlord. He said he would pay for it, we daid we weren't looking for the money...just letting him know. When we left 6 months later he refunded us the cost saying the old one was 20 years old and someone else would get the benefit of the new one. We had the house repainted before we left (three toddlers equals messy walls)

It just takes a bit of common sense on both sides but common sense isn't so common any more.

I welcome the new inititave for first time buyers, it certainly helped a lot to buy in 70s.

Bass Reeves

seamus wrote: »

And a fairly sizeable section of landlords would go crazy and withhold deposits if a tenant had the gall to do a bit of painting, hang a couple of pictures or change a light fitting.

They're two sides of the same dysfunctional market - landlords see tenants as temporary interlopers staying in their house, and tenants see landlords as cheap money-grabbers living a life of luxury.

Because we don't have the benefit of a renting "culture" as they have elsewhere, we may have to go full on crazy and put some really basic things into law - such as the right of a tenant to redecorate as they see fit provided they restore the property at the end of a tenancy, and an obligation to put deposits in an escrow account and a legal ban on any "additional" deposits made directly to the landlord.

In the case above I am not talking about private rentals I was making the point about those tenants that are in long term council houses and paying very modest rents.

I agree that private landlords put clauses in rental agreemenst. However this may because that tenants can exit on quite short notice and landlords have to get the house up to sctrach to let again. Some rentals are quite shortterm and having to paint houses that a tenant may have used really dark colours and done a bad wall paper job to will all cost money to get back up to rental spec.

seamus

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In the case above I am not talking about private rentals I was making the point about those tenants that are in long term council houses and paying very modest rents.

I agree that private landlords put clauses in rental agreemenst. However this may because that tenants can exit on quite short notice and landlords have to get the house up to sctrach to let again. Some rentals are quite shortterm and having to paint houses that a tenant may have used really dark colours and done a bad wall paper job to will all cost money to get back up to rental spec.

And these (and tringle's example), are all just symptoms of the same problem. We've a vicious cycle where nobody treats renting as a long term option, so they don't create agreements or arrangements that encourage long-term renting, so people don't treat rentals as long term...

Everyone puts in the minimum effort because they expect to get burned. In the end it doesn't really matter who the landlord is, the tenant doesn't do the basic maintenance work because they've too many stories of landlords being assholes about it when they did. And landlords are assholes about it because they've loads of stories about tenants who painted ugly murals on the bedroom walls and then left the house in a jock.