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

Samuel T. Cogley

Fabio wrote: »

I often wonder how this happens. I know it does, so not questioning that, but people need to be a little better at assessing who they are letting property too...

Okay how do you propose LL's do that exactly? Between no proper credit referencing, GDPR and people's understandable reluctance to give over bank statements it's very difficult to properly cross check a tenant.

Sultan_of_Ping

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Okay how do you propose LL's do that exactly? Between no proper credit referencing, GDPR and people's understandable reluctance to give over bank statements it's very difficult to properly cross check a tenant.

When we let our property we vetted and vetted......we also didn't advertise. When a tenant was concluding their lease we looked around to get the next by word of mouth.....the couple we let it to who ended up trashing the place were referred to us by a colleague of my wife (the colleague's husband worked with the girl). Both were perfectly nice, interviewed well, had decent professional jobs and, on paper, looked ideal. They were barely in a month before the trouble started.

jobeenfitz

FishOnABike wrote: »

If people could tell the future they'd just buy one lotto ticket.

Unfortunately you can't always judge a book by the cover. I've heard of seemingly respectable professionals leaving with thousands of euro in arrears and damage to property they were renting.

A landlord can try to shorten the odds of being left high and dry but the only things certain in life are death and taxes.

Wouldn't be too sure about the taxes? This is Ireland!

handlemaster

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

I havent see that complaint. . Can.you provide a link?

handlemaster

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.

Legislation states other wise on rent setting

Pkiernan

Fabio wrote: »

I often wonder how this happens. I know it does, so not questioning that, but people need to be a little better at assessing who they are letting property too...

Idiotic post.

In my case a tenant of 3.5 years decided to stop paying rent, and before leaving caused 13k in damages.
The law allows me no effective means of eviction, and and I was lucky the tenant just up and left.
The tenant has no money and I have no means of recovering the losses.

The apartment will not be rented again as a Part 4 tenancy.

Fabio - Please explain what vetting will predict behaviour 3 years from now.

Pkiernan

marieholmfan wrote: »

Why on earth would you believe that?

Only the far left can be victims.

handlemaster

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.

This is opinion only. Have you got data to back this up ?

handlemaster

gaius c wrote: »

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?

Accidental means that.

steddyeddy

Pkiernan wrote: »

Only the far left can be victims.

So I take it you're on the far left as you've described yourself as victim the whole thread.

Graces7

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

No, the alternative is properly manage the construction of a diverse stock of social housing and then manage it as a public asset.

By this I mean provide state or publicly owned land and procure housing/accommodation on a fixed price contract on that land......let the accommodation on the basis of need (not politics).....and charge socially equitable rents.

On top of that.......no forever homes. People have their needs and capacity to pay routinely reviewed and adjusted accordingly. If you don't pay the rent then out you go......likewise if your circumstances change and you need larger or smaller accommodation it should be provided.

Then don't sell the stock off. And don't allow it to be inherited.....it's there to be used to meet a social need, not to reward anyone.

If it was me, I'd take politics out of the whole sorry mess and properly fund and empower housing associations, and also include resident-management requirements in any development or community.

disagree very strongly with that rather heartless approach. In the UK they softened it by imposing a "bedroom tax" so if you were left with a spare room you could still stay in your home.

Graces7

handlemaster wrote: »

This is opinion only. Have you got data to back this up ?

There is a thread on the A and P board even as we speak dealing with just this

There are safeguards of sorts. The landlord has to get an affidavit from a solicitor that the house is on the market and if it does not sell within I think 3 months the tenant has first choice.

But as that thread points out, if the tenant does not know the rules... There are a few other egs in that thread.

handlemaster

FTA69 wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

LL are generally pointing out the flaws in the system. But rather than trying to understand that people just hear what they want to hear.

Just don't use them if it bothers you that much. Use the govt provided housing instead.

There isnt any available. Instead we have vast sums of taxpayer's money being transferred into the hands of private landlords via rent allowance while rent is also inflated massively for everyone else in the cities thus allowing landlords to make a fortune.

Coincidentally the government which allows this to happen is ideologically allergic to state housing despite it being badly needed, and lo and behold, the same government has a massive percentage of people who are also landlords.

50% approx going.back to the government

Sultan_of_Ping

Graces7 wrote: »

disagree very strongly with that rather heartless approach. In the UK they softened it by imposing a "bedroom tax" so if you were left with a spare room you could still stay in your home.

Disagree all you want but the impression being generated now is that you are not only "entitled" to a forever home, but that you should also be granted a right to buy it at a significant discount (having rented it at a significant discount) - or that you should be allowed inherit it.

It may be heartless but given we've finite resources why shouldn't people whose needs fall short of the social housing they are in be forced to yield that property to a more deserving person and move to a property that more closely matches their needs?

marieholmfan

handlemaster wrote: »

50% approx going.back to the government

that's actually a really good point

Ray Palmer

Well starting with the first misconception. Rents are not the highest they ever have been. They are still lower that the peak of tiger years.

So when people talk about how they increased so much they are selectively ignoring the years where the rent was dropping.

Then you have to consider the fact since the rents were at their peak there are more expenses and taxes now.

When rents were dropping the government added PRSI, USC, LPT and PRPT. They also reduce the allowable deduction of interest payments.

This put many landlords who had worked out their figures to deal with a rent reduction being caught out by a pretty large increase in tax and costs of about 13% on top of the reduced rent.

In order to recoup the loss of €1 a landlord has to increase the rent by €2.

Then the government reduced the rent allowance payments and forced landlords to reduce their rent while breaking leases.

Next action was for them to cap rent increase in many areas and bring in a rule that they must accept rent allowance.

So if people call being a landlords a business they should note that these rules don't apply to other businesses such as PRSI and the just restored interest allowance which has always been allowed for businesses.

Rent was going to go up when it could not due to greed but to recoup the losses and get back to the margins people planned for. The government and public were warned and they didn't care and were glad to see landlords suffer.

Claims that the government look out for landlords just simply isn't true. If somebody says other wise prove it and the fact new houses aren't being built is not evidence. As I am self employed I pay an additional 1% on my rental income (not profit), it makes no sense

Lia_lia

My landlady is great. We have lived in the house for about 5 years and she's never raised the rent. She can't raise it by much now as we are in a RPZ but still has never raised it. It's well below market rent. She also pays our bins. I wonder why she never raises the rent. Maybe it's still well over the mortgage, I don't know. She is also great for getting someone in to fix things. Although if it's a small job we just do it ourselves. Also the house is decorated nicely with high quality furniture and appliances as she used to live here.

I do have the fear she'll sell the place but luckily we'd have enough for a deposit to buy a house ourselves if we needed.

Anyway, just glad our landlady isn't as difficult to deal with as some of the ones I hear about here.

Ray Palmer

Lia_lia wrote: »

My landlady is great. We have lived in the house for about 5 years and she's never raised the rent. She can't raise it by much now as we are in a RPZ but still has never raised it. It's well below market rent. She also pays our bins. I wonder why she never raises the rent. Maybe it's still well over the mortgage, I don't know. She is also great for getting someone in to fix things. Although if it's a small job we just do it ourselves. Also the house is decorated nicely with high quality furniture and appliances as she used to live here.

I do have the fear she'll sell the place but luckily we'd have enough for a deposit to buy a house ourselves if we needed.

Anyway, just glad our landlady isn't as difficult to deal with as some of the ones I hear about here.

What is terrible about that is she will be punished financially for that. She can't bring the rent up to market rate when you leave she has only the 4% allowable. This will also affect the sale price as any new landlord will also have to do the same. So the demand for the property will be less.

That just doesn't seem fair and is a cause of increasing rents

doddyoz

Here is my opinion to the housing crisis:
The lack of housing is driven by homes used as investment portfolios. Do we really have a lack of housing or is big business milking the housing market… Lack of housing = higher prices that can be charged what is the incentive to build new housing. We all saw with the Celtic Tiger crash how quickly the investors offloaded their properties then, are we so blind to see what is happening now?

Ray Palmer

doddyoz wrote: »

Here is my opinion to the housing crisis:
The lack of housing is driven by homes used as investment portfolios. Do we really have a lack of housing or is big business milking the housing market… Lack of housing = higher prices that can be charged what is the incentive to build new housing. We all saw with the Celtic Tiger crash how quickly the investors offloaded their properties then, are we so blind to see what is happening now?

Their are more individual pensioners living in large family homes than there are vacant properties held by big businesses. You really are being fed a line about investors and developers sitting on property. If there was money in it they would do it but there is no way they are all colluding with each other. It is a competitive market and they don't just sit around. It suggests all the architects,engineers, project manager etc... are just paid to sit around. That is what is being suggested.

The investors didn't off load their property they went bankrupt.

alias no.9

doddyoz wrote: »

Here is my opinion to the housing crisis:
The lack of housing is driven by homes used as investment portfolios. Do we really have a lack of housing or is big business milking the housing market… Lack of housing = higher prices that can be charged what is the incentive to build new housing. We all saw with the Celtic Tiger crash how quickly the investors offloaded their properties then, are we so blind to see what is happening now?

There is a massive under supply right now of both rental accommodation and houses for sale in Dublin. Investors did not offload properties in the last crash, we bought our current home in 2013 after two years of looking, the available stock back then was depressing too. What was for sale was a mix of executor sales, bank sales and the occasional divorce or break up. There was little or nothing in a walk in condition.

The only thing that will resolve the current crisis is the construction of both social and private housing, I was going to use a deckchairs on the titanic metaphor for any other action but lifeboats on the titanic seems more appropriate, prioritising one group just means another group gets thrown overboard.

Sultan_of_Ping

doddyoz wrote: »

Here is my opinion to the housing crisis:
The lack of housing is driven by homes used as investment portfolios. Do we really have a lack of housing or is big business milking the housing market… Lack of housing = higher prices that can be charged what is the incentive to build new housing. We all saw with the Celtic Tiger crash how quickly the investors offloaded their properties then, are we so blind to see what is happening now?

Such nonsense......if anyone has an incentive to see a property rented out and occupied it's someone who is holding it as part of an investment portfolio.

If you are suggesting they are constricting supply then either they'd be objecting to new schemes being built and/or holding properties vacant. In Dublin (not sure about the rest of the country) vacancies are historically low and the public record shows that it's NIMBY's and politicians who are the serial objectors.

Selling a property during the crash was about avoiding/minimising debt liabilities.......if you wanted to sell speculatively and realise a profit you'd have sold before the crash.

pickarooney

Is there such a thing as rental insurance? I.e. as a tenant you take out insurance which will pay your rent for a short period of you default on it? With some sort of no claims bonus at the end of the lease. If it was obligatory for obtaining a rental, non-payers would be blacklisted if they went beyond the covered period and unable to rent elsewhere again. It would need a working eviction process though.

Samuel T. Cogley

pickarooney wrote: »

Is there such a thing as rental insurance? I.e. as a tenant you take out insurance which will pay your rent for a short period of you default on it? With some sort of no claims bonus at the end of the lease. If it was obligatory for obtaining a rental, non-payers would be blacklisted if they went beyond the covered period and unable to rent elsewhere again. It would need a working eviction process though.

There sort of is. It only covers a very small amount but might be enough to cover a mortgage.

KevinCavan

doddyoz wrote: »

Here is my opinion to the housing crisis:
The lack of housing is driven by homes used as investment portfolios. Do we really have a lack of housing or is big business milking the housing market… Lack of housing = higher prices that can be charged what is the incentive to build new housing. We all saw with the Celtic Tiger crash how quickly the investors offloaded their properties then, are we so blind to see what is happening now?

I think the biggest problem is that a housing boom is always good for an Irish government seeking re-election. In Ireland housing boom=economy going well= great politicians. It’s in the interest of politicians to inflate housing prices in this country anyway.

Eggs For Dinner

At this stage of my life, I could probably afford to get a 2nd property to rent out. However, no way would I ever be a landlord. I've seen 1st hand on many, many occasions what the wrong tenant can do to your property (and your sanity). I know there are excellent tenants out there, but the consequences of getting it wrong are not worth the risk to me

marieholmfan

KevinCavan wrote: »

I think the biggest problem is that a housing boom is always good for an Irish government seeking re-election. In Ireland housing boom=economy going well= great politicians. It’s in the interest of politicians to inflate housing prices in this country anyway.

Creates good money for badly educated men who are willing to work. Ironically if we aggressively controlled housing prices we could retain skilled manufacturing in this country. The dysfunctional housing market is destroying our competitiveness.

FishOnABike

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What is terrible about that is she will be punished financially for that. She can't bring the rent up to market rate when you leave she has only the 4% allowable. This will also affect the sale price as any new landlord will also have to do the same. So the demand for the property will be less.

That just doesn't seem fair and is a cause of increasing rents

It depends on how much below market rates the current rent is. If the rent hasn't been increased in five years it can currently be increased by 12% to 13%, depending on exact dates, according to the residential tenancies board online RPZ calculator.

doddyoz

I did not say that investors were not renting the properties out. They are charging high rents to maximise profits.

For new building schemes investors will be the first through the door to snap up new properties and again charge high rents. If we were to drastically restrict the rent that investors/speculators are allowed to charge or restrict the amount of properties that they can hold you would see not only a drop in rents but also house prices too.

From what I saw from the crash investors pulled out as soon as they knew that the crash was coming.

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Such nonsense......if anyone has an incentive to see a property rented out and occupied it's someone who is holding it as part of an investment portfolio.

If you are suggesting they are constricting supply then either they'd be objecting to new schemes being built and/or holding properties vacant. In Dublin (not sure about the rest of the country) vacancies are historically low and the public record shows that it's NIMBY's and politicians who are the serial objectors.

Selling a property during the crash was about avoiding/minimising debt liabilities.......if you wanted to sell speculatively and realise a profit you'd have sold before the crash.

Graces7

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

At this stage of my life, I could probably afford to get a 2nd property to rent out. However, no way would I ever be a landlord. I've seen 1st hand on many, many occasions what the wrong tenant can do to your property (and your sanity). I know there are excellent tenants out there, but the consequences of getting it wrong are not worth the risk to me

Only thing I ever did to upset a landlord was to leave! Apart from asking was the mountain stream water potable..