Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

steddyeddy

I think some landlords in Ireland have a tendency to play the poor mouth. In receipt of the biggest rents in the history of the state, yet they're very vocal about how they're mistreated by the government ect. I get that there needs to be more protection against bad tenants but anyone who has rented has encountered their own share of dodgy landlords too.

I think it grates on people that they're moaning about life during a housing crisis which ultimately benefits them and makes it harder for tenants even on a decent wage. I lived and rented in other countries and currently live in the UK and I have to say the standard of service is far higher in other places. One thing that Irish landlords never seemed to get is the fact that once they rent a property out it's someone else's residence. You don't get to turn up unannounced and walk around.

So to sum up the cool story bro I think that Irish landlords really shouldn't feel like the victims in the housing crisis. Yes some things could work better but as a group they could be doing a lot worse.

Zebra3

If landlords have a problem there’s a simple solution.

Sell up and invest your money elsewhere.

Not interested in your whinging.

steddyeddy

Zebra3 wrote: »

If landlords have a problem there’s a simple solution.

Sell up and invest your money elsewhere.

Not interested in your whinging.

If they have a genuine problem like bad tenants and not enough legislation then fair enough, but the type of problems they talk about on Boards and other areas involve them not being able to walk in and out of a rented house over and over again.

wexie

I don't know, but from reading some of the threads lots of them are sure angry over something.

Yer Da sells Avon

Go onto the Accommodation & Property forum and you'll see people suggesting, in all seriousness, that landlords shouldn't be taxed on their income and that if you're renting a house, it isn't your home. If they have it tough at a time when they can effectively name their price, then it's not a sustainable business model and they should find a more productive way of earning a living.

steddyeddy

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Go onto the Accommodation & Property forum and you'll see people suggesting, in all seriousness, that landlords shouldn't be taxed on their income and that if you're renting a house, it isn't your home. If they have it tough at a time when they can effectively name their price, then it's not a sustainable business model and they should find a more productive way of earning a living.

This is it exactly. These sorts of LLs seem to have great pains to have to operate within a business whereby you can charge huge amounts of a person's wage, have to pay tax to the government and then actually not invade the tenants home once they're there.

Pkiernan

Zebra3 wrote: »

If jobdodgers have a problem there’s a simple solution.

Get a job lazybones.

Not interested in your whinging.

Here you go

Pkiernan

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think some landlords in Ireland have a tendency to play the poor mouth. In receipt of the biggest rents in the history of the state, yet they're very vocal about how they're mistreated by the government ect. I get that there needs to be more protection against bad tenants but anyone who has rented has encountered their own share of dodgy landlords too.

I think it grates on people that they're moaning about life during a housing crisis which ultimately benefits them and makes it harder for tenants even on a decent wage. I lived and rented in other countries and currently live in the UK and I have to say the standard of service is far higher in other places. One thing that Irish landlords never seemed to get is the fact that once they rent a property out it's someone else's residence. You don't get to turn up unannounced and walk around.

So to sum up the cool story bro I think that Irish landlords really shouldn't feel like the victims in the housing crisis. Yes some things could work better but as a group they could be doing a lot worse.

When you leave college and save up for a property and rent it out and some rogue tenant screws you over you'll change your tune.

steddyeddy

Pkiernan wrote: »

When you leave college and save up for a property and rent it out and some rogue tenant screws you over you'll change your tune.

I worked all of my life in all sorts of jobs to put myself through college. Left home at 16 and paid for everything myself. I'm working and doing OK thanks. I've also encountered plenty of dodgy landlords who ripped me off when I could least afford it. So try to look at it from the tenants point of view.

I lived in a house with a nice landlord who did later fall victim to bad tenants so as I said in the OP there needs to be more protection there.

Pkiernan

steddyeddy wrote: »

I worked all of my life in all sorts of jobs to put myself through college. Left home at 16 and paid for everything myself. I'm working and doing OK thanks. I've also encountered plenty of dodgy landlords who ripped me off when I could least afford it. So try to look at it from the tenants point of view.

I lived in a house with a nice landlord who did later fall victim to bad tenants so as I said in the OP there needs to be more protection there.

Roddy Doyle eat your heart out...

My last tenants point of view cost me 17000.

steddyeddy

Pkiernan wrote: »

Roddy Doyle eat your heart out...

It was more Irvine Welsh than Doyle you'll find.

My last tenants point of view cost me 17000.

At least you've retained your sense of humor.

mikemac2

There is a landlord on boards who proudly admits he evicts tenants every five months

It’s seems after six months something called Part IV rights kick in and the tenants are harder to evict

Doesn’t matter if you are an amazing tenant you get evicted after 5 months

Still blames the government for all the woe and strife in his property business sob sob

steddyeddy

mikemac2 wrote: »

There is a landlord on boards who proudly admits he evicts tenants every five months

It’s seems after six months something called Part IV rights kick in and the tenants are harder to evict

Doesn’t matter if you are an amazing tenant you get evicted after 5 months

Still blames the government for all the woe and strife in his property business sob sob

What gets me is people complaining about government regulation. They usually say "how dare people tell me what to do with my own home". No, it's not just a home, it's a business if you want to rent it. When you rent out to other people it also becomes their place of residence. So yes protection is needed.

mikemac2

Ah they pine for the days of Strumpet City

Sky King

I had a tenant run up thousands and thousands in rent arrears. On top of this I had to meet mortgage payments and pay my solicitor. I got on to the RTB (useless) then my local TD, the ombudsman.

Eventually the overstaying tenant vacated the property. he had wrecked the place.

Never again.

Not playing the poor mouth, the law is there to protect vulnerable tenants and I totally understand and agree with this need. But it doesn't protect landlords and it needs to. It is totally deficient in this regard.

The chickens have come home to roost because landlords are voting with their feet, and if I was still one, I would do the very same. Air BNB all the way. i don't owe anyone long term accommodation and if I choose to provide it I want to be protected by the law. As it currently stands I wouldn't be.

Yer Da sells Avon

Sky King wrote: »

Not playing the poor mouth, the law is there to protect vulnerable tenants and I totally understand and agree with this need. But it doesn't protect landlords and it needs to. It is totally deficient in this regard.

It doesn't seem to protect tenants very well either, considering (a) what we're currently paying, and (b) the absence of security of tenure. I live in dread of getting a phone call from my landlord, saying he's returning to Ireland and wants his apartment back. We really need a better system - one that makes it easier to kick someone out for not paying their rent, but also makes it impossible to kick someone out if they are paying their rent, abiding by the tenancy agreement, etc.

Turtwig

It's a bit of both some landlords think that property should be a risk free non taxable investment. Some tenants think they're entitled to whatever house they want and all their needs should be provided for by sources other than themselves.

Some landlords do have it tough an investment can go tits up. A tenant may damage their property. Likewise so do tenants have it tough. The problem right now is an overwhelming number of tenants have it tougher but the appetite for landlords to supply tenements is dwindling. Making things even worse.

steddyeddy

Sky King wrote: »

I had a tenant run up thousands and thousands in rent arrears. On top of this I had to meet mortgage payments and pay my solicitor. I got on to the RTB (useless) then my local TD, the ombudsman.

Eventually the overstaying tenant vacated the property. he had wrecked the place.

Never again.

Not playing the poor mouth, the law is there to protect vulnerable tenants and I totally understand and agree with this need. But it doesn't protect landlords and it needs to. It is totally deficient in this regard.

The chickens have come home to roost because landlords are voting with their feet, and if I was still one, I would do the very same. Air BNB all the way. i don't owe anyone long term accommodation and if I choose to provide it I want to be protected by the law. As it currently stands I wouldn't be.

I really don't see how it's in the interest of tenants in general or landlords in general to not be able to evict tenants who refuse (as opposed to are unable) to pay rent. There should be more protection there and then a more deserving tenant would get a house.

steddyeddy

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It doesn't seem to protect tenants very well either, considering (a) what we're currently paying, and (b) the absence of security of tenure. I live in dread of getting a phone call from my landlord, saying he's returning to Ireland and wants his apartment back. We really need a better system - one that makes it easier to kick someone out for not paying their rent, but also makes it impossible to kick someone out if they are paying their rent, abiding by the tenancy agreement, etc.

The selling the house line is often used by landlords to get the tenant to vacate. Often times not even intending to sell the house.

wexie

steddyeddy wrote: »

I really don't see how it's in the interest of tenants in general or landlords in general to not be able to evict tenants who refuse (as opposed to are unable) to pay rent.

It's not, it's not in anyone's interest other than the government agencies that would then have to deal with said evicted tenant and try to find them somewhere else. When they already know there isn't anywhere else.

From what (admittedly little) I know the whole system is....I don't know I want to say archaic but it's more than that, it's backward.

There is very little protection for tenants to protect them from bad landlords and equally very little protection for landlords to protect them from bad tenants.

oceanman

wexie wrote: »

I don't know, but from reading some of the threads lots of them are sure angry over something.

like farmers are always angry over something.....just ignore them

engiweirdo

Irish people seem to have this weird concept that if you purchase a house with a mortgage, you should be entitled to cover the mortgage via the rent plus a nice bit of profit AND have the asset at the end to further profit from. And sure why wouldnt they? They are readily enabled by whatever government is in charge in this mentality. Greedy shower of baxtards to a man/woman.

Laois_Man

engiweirdo wrote: »

Irish people seem to have this weird concept that if you purchase a house with a mortgage, you should be entitled to cover the mortgage via the rent plus a nice bit of profit AND have the asset at the end to further profit from. And sure why wouldnt they? They are readily enabled by whatever government is in charge in this mentality. Greedy shower of baxtards to a man/woman.

2 assumptions there!

1) That there is any profit after monthly mortgage payments
2) That the value of the property at the end of the mortgage is more than the purchase price

Many MANY times, neither case is true! But taxation doesn't take any of it into account!

engiweirdo

Laois_Man wrote: »

2 assumptions there!

1) That there is any profit after monthly mortgage payments
2) That the value of the property at the end of the mortgage is more than the purchase price

Many MANY times, neither case is true! But taxation doesn't take any of it into account!

To both: So what. Its an investment not a gaurantee. Oh to have an administration with the balls to reduce rents to the levels they should be at. Having it off and still moaning. Should probably pay more tax on it as you've clearly too much money if you've spare houses to rent out while a generation cant afford a home.

Laois_Man

engiweirdo wrote: »

To both: So what. Its an investment not a gaurantee. Oh to have an administration with the balls to reduce rents to the levels they should be at. Having it off and still moaning. Should probably pay more tax on it as you've clearly too much money if you've spare houses to rent out while a generation cant afford a home.

Another 2 assumptions

3) That the house is an investment
4) That it’s a “spare house”

Ever hear of the term “accidental landlord”?

steddyeddy

Laois_Man wrote: »

2 assumptions there!

1) That there is any profit after monthly mortgage payments
2) That the value of the property at the end of the mortgage is more than the purchase price

Many MANY times, neither case is true! But taxation doesn't take any of it into account!

That covers a lot of jobs to be honest.

engiweirdo

Laois_Man wrote: »

Another 2 assumptions

3) That the house is an investment
4) That it’s a “spare house”

Ever hear of the term “accidental landlord”?

Ever heard of the term "cut your losses". No entitlement to profit or even break even. Pure greed.

Church on Tuesday

Sorry most landlords are gangsters, speaking from vast experience here.

It's a business for them, it's not done out of the kindness of their heart.

It's a virtual goldmine for them. Have you ever met a poor landlord? I haven't.

No sympathy for landlords either who let a place out only to have tenants fall back on their rent or wreck the place. Ask for a reference, most people who are decent have a work, or at the very least character reference, then cross reference that reference. That's your responsibility.

Laois_Man

engiweirdo wrote: »

Ever heard of the term "cut your losses". No entitlement to profit or even break even. Pure greed.

How exactly is someone whose house is worth €100,000 less than the purchase price going to “cut losses” if they are an accidental landlord? Do you think the bank is gonna take that €100,000 loss out of the goodness of their hearts?

gaius c

Laois_Man wrote: »

2 assumptions there!

1) That there is any profit after monthly mortgage payments

You're confusing cashflow with profit/loss.

gaius c

Laois_Man wrote: »

How exactly is someone whose house is worth €100,000 less than the purchase price going to “cut losses” if they are an accidental landlord? Do you think the bank is gonna take that €100,000 loss out of the goodness of their hearts?

Why should the taxpayer subsidise your accidental/bad investment?

engiweirdo

Laois_Man wrote: »

How exactly is someone whose house is worth €100,000 less than the purchase price going to “cut losses” if they are an accidental landlord? Do you think the bank is gonna take that €100,000 loss out of the goodness of their hearts?

Tough. You pay your money you take your chances. No entitlement to profit or break even on an investment.

Zebra3

Accidental landlord.

That's a new one to me.

Laois_Man

engiweirdo wrote: »

Tough. You pay your money you take your chances. No entitlement to profit or break even on an investment.

There you go again with “investment”

I’m not responding to you again until to at least educate yourself on the term “accidental landlord” and how they are people who bought a home, not an investment

Laois_Man

Zebra3 wrote: »

Accidental landlord.

That's a new one to me.

Have you been under a rock?

Laois_Man

gaius c wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer subsidise your accidental/bad investment?

Did somebody say anything about handing out subsidy’s?

fly_agaric

Laois_Man wrote: »

Have you been under a rock?

Well I suppose you could be an "accidental landlord" if you inherit a property or something (while already having somewhere to live).
We all have our crosses to bear in this world I suppose.

...Jesus Christ is nothing on Irish Landlords and the sufferings they endure for the Irish people.:pac:

Austria!

It's extremely tough on landlords who end up with problem tenants, the deck is completely stacked against them. Thousands in damages and unpaid rent.

The other grievance is that landlords don't get any consideration for the time they put into being a landlord. You don't get any expenses for your labour, or let's say your fuel if you had to drive to your property etc.

Samuel T. Cogley

As a LL I'd be more than happy with reasonable rents (around half of what they are now), the tax breaks any business is entitled too such as tax relief on loan interest and the ability not to have a deadbeat tenant not only steal from me for a year or more, but also then trash the place and there be absolutely nothing I can do about it.

fly_agaric

Austria! wrote: »

The other grievance is that landlords don't get any consideration for the time they put into being a landlord. You don't get any expenses for your labour, or let's say your fuel if you had to drive to your property etc.

So the expenses on the property, the tax depreciation etc are not enough.

You'd also want literal "rentiers" to get all the kinds of expenses someone receives who is working at a trade or profession or running a business.:eek:

Samuel T. Cogley

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Sorry most landlords are gangsters, speaking from vast experience here.

It's a business for them, it's not done out of the kindness of their heart.

It's a virtual goldmine for them. Have you ever met a poor landlord? I haven't.

You've not met the majority of LL's then. The vast majority own less than two properties and many do it as a pension.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

No sympathy for landlords either who let a place out only to have tenants fall back on their rent or wreck the place. Ask for a reference, most people who are decent have a work, or at the very least character reference, then cross reference that reference. That's your responsibility.

The only way to cross reference that a tenant has been paying rent is to request bank statements. While it's currently possible to do, as is taking more than one month's security deposit there is legislation being contemplated to stop that.

Electric Sheep

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It doesn't seem to protect tenants very well either, considering (a) what we're currently paying, and (b) the absence of security of tenure. I live in dread of getting a phone call from my landlord, saying he's returning to Ireland and wants his apartment back. We really need a better system - one that makes it easier to kick someone out for not paying their rent, but also makes it impossible to kick someone out if they are paying their rent, abiding by the tenancy agreement, etc.

The selling the house line is often used by landlords to get the tenant to vacate. Often times not even intending to sell the house.

I woyld really like to see laws put in place that would allow for prosecution of landlords who try this crap.

Samuel T. Cogley

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I woyld really like to see laws put in place that would allow for prosecution of landlords who try this crap.

There already are and they are enforced.

smurgen

Austria! wrote: »

It's extremely tough on landlords who end up with problem tenants, the deck is completely stacked against them. Thousands in damages and unpaid rent.

The other grievance is that landlords don't get any consideration for the time they put into being a landlord. You don't get any expenses for your labour, or let's say your fuel if you had to drive to your property etc.

They seemed to survive grand during the bad times and made it even earning modest rents.now in the boom times they're creaming it earning more than even and keep threatening to vote with their feet and sell up.they'll never admit how good they have it.it's like farmers,they'll only ever tell you how bad they have it.it's like if they tell the truth for one second all those government subsidies will dry up.

engiweirdo

Laois_Man wrote: »

There you go again with “investment”

I’m not responding to you again until to at least educate yourself on the term “accidental landlord” and how they are people who bought a home, not an investment

I accidentally bought an overpriced house, couldnt afford the repayments and rather than admit defeat and return the property to the market closer to its true value, I found some other shmuck to cover the mortgage. Poor accidental me.

That about the size of it?

theres reasonable landlords and reasonable tenants

you wont hear much about either set on boards!

a lot of landlords have a major blindspot ime in that they do expect to be in pocket over the entire term of a mortgage. if the rent doesnt cover their monthly outgoings they resent any money extra they have to put in to keep their end of maintenance etc, ignoring that theyll own the gaff outright at the end of the arrangement.

but id agree that the enforcement against problem tenants is ridiculously weak and ineffective.

Samuel T. Cogley

smurgen wrote: »

They seemed to survive grand during the bad times and made it even earning modest rents.now in the boom times they're creaming it earning more than even and keep threatening to vote with their feet and sell up.they'll never admit how good they have it.it's like farmers,they'll only ever tell you how bad they have it.it's like if they tell the truth for one second all those government subsidies will dry up.

During the 'bad times' rents were modest and there was the ability to get rid of bad tenants. Rental numbers remained relatively stable.

Now there are huge profits to be made, but the risk is you'll be ruined by one bad tenant, LL's are exiting the market.

The game now is rigged in favour of large REITs. You'd have to have your head examined if you want to become a one/two off LL now. Much better investing in a REIT that can absorb one or two bad tenants and charge eye watering rents becuase there's a gym in the basement.

Church on Tuesday

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You've not met the majority of LL's then. The vast majority own less than two properties and many do it as a pension.





The only way to cross reference that a tenant has been paying rent is to request bank statements. While it's currently possible to do, as is taking more than one month's security deposit there is legislation being contemplated to stop that.

I'm a 31 year old man, I've met plenty of them.

That's two properties more than most folk.

Most landlords deal only cash in hand, you might be waiting for bank statements.

riemann

Zebra3 wrote: »

Accidental landlord.

That's a new one to me.

It is used to describe a poor unfortunate soul who inherited a property suddenly, without warning.

The shock of this sudden increase in capital wealth usually renders said person paralysed to the extent they are unable to ring an estate agent (a mythical creature who only appears on the seventh full moon of a leap year, if its cloudy).

While coping with this noose around their neck that is an extra property, they are forced to rent it out against their will. It is important to note that any rent charged is accidental.

As an accidental landlord they are also not required to maintain the property or keep all the usual utilities in working order. Ceiling falls in? Tough luck mate, your down on their luck host is still coming to terms with the whole situation and just left on a month long holiday for a relaxing break in Las Vegas.

castie

riemann wrote: »

Zebra3 wrote: »

Accidental landlord.

That's a new one to me.

It is used to describe a poor unfortunate soul who inherited a property suddenly, without warning.

The shock of this sudden increase in capital wealth usually renders said person paralysed to the extent they are unable to ring an estate agent (a mythical creature who only appears on the seventh full moon of a leap year, if its cloudy).

While coping with this noose around their neck that is an extra property, they are forced to rent it out against their will. It is important to note that any rent charged is accidental.

As an accidental landlord they are also not required to maintain the property or keep all the usual utilities in working order. Ceiling falls in? Tough luck mate, your down on their luck host is still coming to terms with the whole situation and just left on a month long holiday for a relaxing break in Las Vegas.

Amazing how wrong someone can be.

A person who bought at the peak and then ended up in a situation where they could no longer afford the mortgage. (Maybe they lost their job?)

They then move out and rent it to someone else to cover the mortgage payments and downsize themselves. ( Sometimes still paying something towards the mortgage where the rent won't fully cover it )

They cant sell due to negative equity so they are stuck.

beauf

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

... they should find a more productive way of earning a living.

Why not let them do airbnb and let someone else provide long term rentals then.