ex landlord advertising house for rental!

Graham

Mod Note: friendly reminder

There's no problem discussing illegal activity but please stay away from anything that resembles advocating it.

Browney7

Summer In the City wrote: »

Or you could argue rents are out of control and tenants should stop paying until its sorted. That would be illegal though.

There's at least 3 examples of landlords raising rents when they're not entitled to and a possible illegal eviction in this thread. I agree that it is a complete mess but everyone acting illegally is only going to make it worse.

My post was meant to advocate that raising the rent in this case is unfair on landlords who are locked to low rates and honour those rents instead of doing what the LL has done in this example.

Summer In the City

Browney7 wrote: »

My post was meant to advocate that raising the rent in this case is unfair on landlords who are locked to low rates and honour those rents instead of doing what the LL has done in this example.

Your perception of what is fair or not doesn't really come in to it. I don't think it's fair that private individuals have the power to deny housing to other private individuals. The law is the law though.

davo10

Summer In the City wrote: »

Your perception of what is fair or not doesn't really come in to it. I don't think it's fair that private individuals have the power to deny housing to other private individuals. The law is the law though.

Why do you think private individuals should have a right or entitlement to be housed by other private individuals?

Summer In the City

davo10 wrote: »

Why do you think private individuals should have a right or entitlement to be housed by other private individuals?

I believe they shouldn't have a right because it leads to predation on the poor. A country with our history with landlords and evictions should never have allowed such a system after the formation of the republic. But its the system we have so the least we can expect is for the landlords and tenants to play by the rules.

Summer In the City

Summer In the City wrote: »

I believe they shouldn't have a right because it leads to predation on the poor. A country with our history with landlords and evictions should never have allowed such a system after the formation of the republic. But its the system we have so the least we can expect is for the landlords and tenants to play by the rules.

The problem is that the rules are very unfair and all in the tenants favour, the property owner should have much more power than they currently have, should be able to set the rent at what ever people are willing to pay, be able to have non-paying tenants out inside 30 days, be easily able to take the property back they need it (giving adequate notice) etc etc.

Summer In the City

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

The problem is that the rules are very unfair and all in the tenants favour, the property owner should have much more power than they currently have, should be able to set the rent at what ever people are willing to pay, be able to have non-paying tenants out inside 30 days, be easily able to take the property back they need it (giving adequate notice) etc etc.

We'll have to disagree on that. The property owner should have no direct rights at all when they're dealing with someone's home. There should be a department set up to deal with private letting. That way the landlord always gets paid and the tenant is protected.

The problems you highlighted above are bad but so are illegal evictions and illegal price hikes.

The_Conductor

Summer In the City wrote: »

We'll have to disagree on that. The property owner should have no direct rights at all when they're dealing with someone's home. There should be a department set up to deal with private letting. That way the landlord always gets paid and the tenant is protected.

The problems you highlighted above are bad but so are illegal evictions and illegal price hikes.

No one can condone illegal evictions or illegal price hikes- however, if you look at the most recent cases at the RTB- the largest number of issues are from tenants who have decided that paying their rent is optional- followed closely by tenants who are illegally overholding having been served with valid notice by the owner of the property- which means there are a number of owners of property in Dublin and Galway (no idea about Cork) who are in emergency accommodation- despite owning suitable property- because their tenants are refusing to vacate the property, despite being issued with valid notice to vacate the property.

If you went back 4-5 years ago- the largest number of complaints at the RTB- was tenants legitimately complaining that landlords were unjustly withholding deposits. This is now the 6th highest complaint to the RTB.

The system as it stands- and the regulatory environment- is no longer fair or representative- and when we have public representatives cheerfully advising that they see no role for small scale landlords in the residential tenancy sector in Ireland- you can tell that the writing is on the wall.

Tenants should have fair and reasonable tenancies- and should feel safe and secure in *their* homes. However, landlords also deserve to have property rights- and the ability to move back into *their* dwelling, that they own, if they need to- or if they wish to sell it. We have already trampled over property ownership rights- and it hasn't been challenged- as it is legally a temporary measure which is due to expire. The manner in which the RPZs are structured- also means a number of them are due to expire too. The government is probably hoping to boot this sufficiently down the road- that it becomes a poisoned chalice for an incoming government- there is a supposition that the government aren't going to survive the duration there though...........

We need to decide where we're going- however, the manner in which the government and local authorities are being allowed wash their hands of their obligations and use private sector landlords as bogeymen- is remarkable- and is going to have a day of reckoning- regardless of how long they manage to boot it into the long grass.

People deserve to feel safe and secure in their homes. People also deserve to know if they own property- that its not going to be randomly appropriated to suit a political soundbite. We also deserve a regulatory regime that respects the rights of both tenants and landlords- and we deserve a proper social housing system- run on a non-profit basis by local authorities- and we need to do away with all the housing associations and bring them inhouse (even Europe is refusing to acknowledge that they are anything other than a fudge- and is including their loans in our public debt figures from 2018 onwards).

We have allowed spinning on a grand scale- we deserve clarity.

Summer In the City

I don't disagree with that but I don't think small scale private landlords will ever work properly. I have rented 3 places in Dublin City and none of the landlords were Prtb registered. There's far too much messing going on.

Fol20

Summer In the City wrote: »

I don't disagree with that but I don't think small scale private landlords will ever work properly. I have rented 3 places in Dublin City and none of the landlords were Prtb registered. There's far too much messing going on.

Small scale landlords are the backbone of the rental sector. Generally speaking, if they own the place directly, they will want to maintain it as they have skin in the game> if your dealing with a large company, your just another number to them and tbh, my dealings with agencies have not been much better. As a landlord myself, the bigger one entity becomes such as REITs the more power they will have in a market, i for one welcome them in the hope they will actually force the government to give us landlords something which IPOA have been so poorly trying to do for years.

Likewise, every small time landlords are taxed and taxed till her eyes bleed. If it goes to large coorporations, that means less tax for the government. In general day to day stuff, going to restaurants, buying materials, whatever it is, i prefer to support the local mom and pop shops instead of franchises if i can.

Summer In the City

Fol20 wrote: »

Small scale landlords are the backbone of the rental sector.

And most of us would agree that the current system is unacceptable for everyone.

Fol20 wrote: »

Generally speaking, if they own the place directly, they will want to maintain it as they have skin in the game>

This certainly isn't true in my experience. Cheap furniture, cheap white goods, bad painted wallpaper, old hotel style carpet. We have a place rented in a developing country and the standard compared to our last two Dublin 4 properties is far superior in every way.

Fol20 wrote: »

Likewise, every small time landlords are taxed and taxed till her eyes bleed. If it goes to large coorporations, that means less tax for the government. In general day to day stuff, going to restaurants, buying materials, whatever it is, i prefer to support the local mom and pop shops instead of franchises if i can.

I don't think your average renter cares where the tax is going once they have somewhere of a decent standard and a fair price. We don't have anything close to that in large parts of the capital.

Pkiernan

Summer In the City wrote: »

I'm in the same boat but I'm not inclined to let the landlord get away with it. If there is current properties coming on the market at a fair price like the scheme is supposed to allow, it should bring prices down as new properties come on the market.

Some people are truly ignorant of the law and need to learn to use the RTB calculator. If there hasn't been a rent increase in several years and the tenancy ends, the 4% can be compounded for new tenants.

FFS

Summer In the City

Pkiernan wrote: »

Some people are truly ignorant of the law and need to learn to use the RTB calculator. If there hasn't been a rent increase in several years and the tenancy ends, the 4% can be compounded for new tenants.

FFS

We had an increase 2 years ago so 4% is the max. You can bask in your own ignorance now, FFS.

steddyeddy

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

The problem is that the rules are very unfair and all in the tenants favour, the property owner should have much more power than they currently have, should be able to set the rent at what ever people are willing to pay, be able to have non-paying tenants out inside 30 days, be easily able to take the property back they need it (giving adequate notice) etc etc.

Housing, like education and healthcare should be regulated. It's a basic need.

Graham

Mod Note:

enough with the personal digs. Attack the post, not the poster

The_Conductor

steddyeddy wrote: »

Housing, like education and healthcare should be regulated. It's a basic need.

Regulation is all well and good.
However, when regulation is stacked in favour of one party- who are free to pick and choose which parts of it to adhere to- and the other party is automatically presumed to be in the wrong- and the only party to whom any consequences apply- you get the picture.........

Yes- there *has* to be regulation.
However, it should be fair and reasonable on both parties- and there should be consequences for both parties- if either of them fail to adhere to their obligations- and the rights of both parties must also be adhered to at all times.

Fairness and equity must prevail.

By rights- the government and the local authorities should bring social housing back in house- and should quite abdicating their responsibilities to the private sector. If this meant a surplus of rental properties in the private sector- happy days- rents would fall to a new equilibrium- which should make private sector tenants quite happy.

The 'regulation' at the moment- is all fine and good- however, its implementation and policing- are appalling.

davo10

Summer In the City wrote: »

I believe they shouldn't have a right because it leads to predation on the poor. A country with our history with landlords and evictions should never have allowed such a system after the formation of the republic. But its the system we have so the least we can expect is for the landlords and tenants to play by the rules.

Though by no means perfect for all, an open market does benefit society as a whole, without it there would be no speculation. Without the possibility of profit, there is no investment so the housing supply would dry up, why would people invest? You may believe in accomadation as a right, but that must be balanced with the right of others to secure accomadation with the means they have earned. Property owners invest in property, not for the common good, but for profit. Banks don't accept good deeds en lieu of repayments, they want hard currency. It is not the responsibility of property owners to provide refuge for the less fortunate, though this is harsh, it is reality and without that, there would be no incentive to build new accomadation. For years people blamed banks for lending and developers for building, now the opposite is true, banks are more frugal and developers are not building. Oversupply to under.

If you want to blame anyone, blame a government who interfered to much and failed to legislate for poor behaviour by tenants. If it was easier to evict errant tenants, more properties would be available. By giving more rights to bad tenants, it has had the effect of making Landlords more determined to offset potential loses by applying onerous conditions for letting.

John_Rambo

The_Conductor wrote: »

No one can condone illegal evictions or illegal price hikes- however, if you look at the most recent cases at the RTB- the largest number of issues are from tenants who have decided that paying their rent is optional- followed closely by tenants who are illegally overholding having been served with valid notice by the owner of the property- which means there are a number of owners of property in Dublin and Galway (no idea about Cork) who are in emergency accommodation- despite owning suitable property- because their tenants are refusing to vacate the property, despite being issued with valid notice to vacate the property.

If you went back 4-5 years ago- the largest number of complaints at the RTB- was tenants legitimately complaining that landlords were unjustly withholding deposits. This is now the 6th highest complaint to the RTB.

The system as it stands- and the regulatory environment- is no longer fair or representative- and when we have public representatives cheerfully advising that they see no role for small scale landlords in the residential tenancy sector in Ireland- you can tell that the writing is on the wall.

Tenants should have fair and reasonable tenancies- and should feel safe and secure in *their* homes. However, landlords also deserve to have property rights- and the ability to move back into *their* dwelling, that they own, if they need to- or if they wish to sell it. We have already trampled over property ownership rights- and it hasn't been challenged- as it is legally a temporary measure which is due to expire. The manner in which the RPZs are structured- also means a number of them are due to expire too. The government is probably hoping to boot this sufficiently down the road- that it becomes a poisoned chalice for an incoming government- there is a supposition that the government aren't going to survive the duration there though...........

We need to decide where we're going- however, the manner in which the government and local authorities are being allowed wash their hands of their obligations and use private sector landlords as bogeymen- is remarkable- and is going to have a day of reckoning- regardless of how long they manage to boot it into the long grass.

People deserve to feel safe and secure in their homes. People also deserve to know if they own property- that its not going to be randomly appropriated to suit a political soundbite. We also deserve a regulatory regime that respects the rights of both tenants and landlords- and we deserve a proper social housing system- run on a non-profit basis by local authorities- and we need to do away with all the housing associations and bring them inhouse (even Europe is refusing to acknowledge that they are anything other than a fudge- and is including their loans in our public debt figures from 2018 onwards).

We have allowed spinning on a grand scale- we deserve clarity.

Is this craic (the bolded bit only) an issue? (the rest of the post is insightful) Or at least part of the issue where landlords don't really see their property as someone elses home? A home where they raise their kids, go to sleep at night, wake up in the morning. A place they call home that they go to after a long days work?

The inverted comma's or *their* homes carry on bangs of a lack of detachment on the landlords part when they don't really consider the house or apartment to be someones home.

Not having a dig at you in particular Conductor, but I've seen this a lot and like it or not, it is their home, not "their home" or *their* home! I think some Irish landlords have to much emotional attachment to their property, so much so that they just can't consider the property to be someone elses home.

Summer In the City

davo10 wrote: »

Though by no means perfect for all, an open market does benefit society as a whole, without it there would be no speculation. Without the possibility of profit, there is no investment so the housing supply would dry up, why would people invest? You may believe in accomadation as a right, but that must be balanced with the right of others to secure accomadation with the means they have earned. Property owners invest in property, not for the common good, but for profit. Banks don't accept good deeds en lieu of repayments, they want hard currency. It is not the responsibility of property owners to provide refuge for the less fortunate

Peoples homes for profit is a major problem though. I'm not suggesting that we do away with private homes but the government needs to start subsiding affordable housing on a mass scale. The problem the free market has is these subsidised homes devalue the higher end of the market. This is why Irish governments haven't realised any of the promises they've made on this over the last 20 odd years.

davo10 wrote: »

If you want to blame anyone, blame a government who interfered to much and failed to legislate for poor behaviour by tenants. If it was easier to evict errant tenants, more properties would be available. By giving more rights to bad tenants, it has had the effect of making Landlords more determined to offset potential loses by applying onerous conditions for letting.

I completely blame the government. I don't expect private landlords to do anything but get the absolute maximum that they can for their investment. This is why I don't think they are fit for purpose when providing a service such as housing. Different case altogether if you're flogging cars or whatever.

davo10

Summer In the City wrote: »

Peoples homes for profit is a major problem though

I don't expect private landlords to do anything but get the absolute maximum that they can for their investment. This is why I don't think they are fit for purpose when providing a service such as housing. Different case altogether if you're flogging cars or whatever.

You are contradicting yourself.

When I buy a "home" it is my home, it's not for profit, it is my home. When I buy a property for rental, it is for profit, not philanthropy.

You say it is not fit for purpose, without the potential for profit there is no purpose. It is not the responsibility private investors to provide accommodation for the less fortunate. If the provision of accommodation for all was left to the state, it would never happen.

davo10

John_Rambo wrote: »

Is this craic (the bolded bit only) an issue? (the rest of the post is insightful) Or at least part of the issue where landlords don't really see their property as someone elses home? A home where they raise their kids, go to sleep at night, wake up in the morning. A place they call home that they go to after a long days work?

The inverted comma's or *their* homes carry on bangs of a lack of detachment on the landlords part when they don't really consider the house or apartment to be someones home.

Not having a dig at you in particular Conductor, but I've seen this a lot and like it or not, it is their home, not "their home" or *their* home! I think some Irish landlords have to much emotional attachment to their property, so much so that they just can't consider the property to be someone elses home.

A "home" has emotional connotations, its "yours", but the fact it, it isn't. For the owner it is an asset or liability which must be paid for. For a tenant it is a place where they reside but without the liability of a mortgage. A rental agreement is a business transaction, the owner provides property, the tenant pays for it.

Summer In the City

davo10 wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself.

When I buy a "home" it is my home, it's not for profit, it is my home. When I buy a property for rental, it is for profit, not philanthropy.

I'm not. I don't believe anyone should profit from renting someone a home. The government should provide that service. The other way the system can become fairer is far more stringent rent caps.

Topgear on Dave

Summer In the City wrote: »

I'm not. I don't believe anyone should profit from renting someone a home. The government should provide that service.

You know that if there is no profit that no one will then rent out a house?

Then the government will be required "somehow" to provide housing for all?

And that the funding to provide housing for all will cut into funding for health/education etc?

The_Conductor

Summer In the City wrote: »

I'm not. I don't believe anyone should profit from renting someone a home. The government should provide that service.

There are plenty of people who believe the government should- including, believe it or not- a sizeable portion of landlords. There are also plenty of private sector tenants out there- who would probably pay far less in rent- if the current system did not prevail.

The government though has decided it doesn't want to be a landlord- and is actively selling off (and continues to sell off) public housing stock. This is lunacy.

The government needs to be held responsible for housing its people.
If some decide to rent privately- fine- let them- but they shouldn't have an imperative to do so.

At the moment- it suits the government to have private sector landlords as the poster boys for all the ills in the sector- and they make excellent whipping boys for political soundbites in the media.

We need a massive rollout of social housing schemes- and we need it to be vested in the public sector.
Private tenancies- should be put on a sounder footing- and regulation should protect both tenants and landlords- but in the situation where social housing provided by the government and/or local authorities is the first option- not the last option.

Also- we need to stop selling off local authority housing IMMEDIATELY.

Summer In the City

The_Conductor wrote: »

There are plenty of people who believe the government should- including, believe it or not- a sizeable portion of landlords. There are also plenty of private sector tenants out there- who would probably pay far less in rent- if the current system did not prevail.

The government though has decided it doesn't want to be a landlord- and is actively selling off (and continues to sell off) public housing stock. This is lunacy.

The government needs to be held responsible for housing its people.
If some decide to rent privately- fine- let them- but they shouldn't have an imperative to do so.

I agree completely. It is lunacy.

John_Rambo

davo10 wrote: »

A "home" has emotional connotations, its "yours", but the fact it, it isn't. For the owner it is an asset or liability which must be paid for. For a tenant it is a place where they reside but without the liability of a mortgage. A rental agreement is a business transaction, the owner provides property, the tenant pays for it.

So you don't think rented property is someone's home? It's just somewhere where they reside?

I think you need to adjust your mentality regarding this. When I rented out property for years I considered it the renters home, they called it home, they lived there, not a stop gap, not a place to hang their hat up. I rented it out unfurnished, attracting people that had their own beds, bedsheets, ornaments, art, decor etc... I respected their home and the way they ran it. They in turn looked after the place properly.

Again, the inverted commas. "home" "theirs"

Summer In the City

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

You know that if there is no profit that no one will then rent out a house?

Then the government will be required "somehow" to provide housing for all?

And that the funding to provide housing for all will cut into funding for health/education etc?

If there is no profit the existing landlords will sell their properties which in an ideal world the government buy and rent out. They still get a return that covers the cost of the property.

davo10

John_Rambo wrote: »

So you don't think rented property is someone's home? It's just somewhere where they reside?
(

Absolutely, why would you think otherwise?

A rental property is a mortgage backed asset/liability which is rented via a tenancy contract.

davo10

Summer In the City wrote: »

If there is no profit the existing landlords will sell their properties which in an ideal world the government buy and rent out. They still get a return that covers the cost of the property.

At an average cost of €300k in Dublin, it would cost billions and then the state would become a landlord having to invest in maintenance and upgrades, it would cost trillions and bankrupt the country.

John_Rambo

davo10 wrote: »

Absolutely, why would you think otherwise?

A rental property is a mortgage backed asset/liability which is rented via a tenancy contract.

Because I know otherwise, been on both sides of the fence. I've rented property, it was my home. I've rented out property to people, it was their home.

After work, I went home. After work, people that rented my property went home. Simple as that.

If you've overstretched, if the market is against you, if you've miscalculated you suck it up. It's a risk investment that will probably stand to you in years to come, but if you think it's profit making from day one you're sadly mistaken.