Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Not worth the hassle?

Options
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    RayCun wrote: »
    Yes, but suppose you are a plumber, and spend June working for a customer, who doesn't pay (or takes ages to pay). Yes, you can work in July, but you have a lot of bills coming through that you were going to pay with June's income, and the July income, when it comes in, is already earmarked for a different set of bills.

    At the end of the day, a month's income is a month's income, you can't help but notice the loss.

    How about noticing the loss of 6 or 12 months income and not being able to do anything about it??


  • Options
    #153
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,384 ✭✭✭1874


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    True but in reality most LL with one tenant are doing it on top of other work as a way to get some extra money, so they are not getting no money.
    If being a LL was the only income source I would expect them to have multiple tenants, and the chances of all overholding at them same time is very slim.
    Thats not to say there isn't more needs to be done to deal with overholding anyway.


    That doesnt make sense, and I mean its not reasonable, thats like saying if a plumber doesnt get paid by a customer1, he can expect customer2 to pay those bills,because the plumber is getting income from other sources, that money will be earmarked for costs related to customer2, and it assumes there is an alternative means of income at all or sufficient coming to cover such a situation.
    How being only a LL means there are multiple tenants or tenancies is a big leap too, another assumption, a lot more needs to be done with overholding, its the cause of landlords getting out, who else is providing alternatives? not the State/Govt of the day, there is no appetite to get into it privately, 100% interest relief wont cut it, yet people bemoan that it is a landlords paradise because of that. As someone pointed out earlier, treated as a business in some regards and not in others, selected to suit the State/Govt, who are the main cause of increasing rents, they take well over half of all rent from tenants.


  • Options
    #154
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    RayCun wrote: »
    And landlords can increase rent. Yes, there are some limits in RPZs, but their hands are not completely tied.

    A quick google shows lots of offers of landlord insurance, in Ireland.

    "Loss of rent up to 15% of combined Building Sum Insured & Contents Sum Insured if a buy-to-let property is uninhabitable following an insured loss"

    " If a buy to let property is uninhabitable following an insured loss"

    Afaik that means it the property is flooded or burned or something similar but not If the tenant stops paying rent


  • Options
    #155
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    mrslancaster wrote: »


    How about noticing the loss of 6 or 12 months income and not being able to do anything about it??

    Insurance?

    Do you think landlords are the only people who have to deal with potential losses of income?
    Do you think property investments should be risk-free?

    Why not lease to the local authority?
    https://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/do-you-have-a-property-to-let.aspx

    "If you have a residential property and would be interested in leasing it for 10 years or more, you can:
    Get guaranteed rent.
    Avoid losing rent during vacant periods."


  • Options
    #156
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    RayCun wrote: »
    And landlords can increase rent. Yes, there are some limits in RPZs, but their hands are not completely tied..

    Yes rent can be increased by 4% in a rpz after one year - how is that relevant if the tenant is not paying any rent?

    4% of nothing is nothing...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,384 ✭✭✭1874


    Risk free is one thing, having a customer steal from a business will have them end up in the hands of the Gardai if they are so easily caught and before the Courts, for items to the value of a lot less than a property or months of rent, add to that the potential for malicious damage,
    Also letting to a local authority is not without risks, they place all the responsibility of dealing with the tenant on a LL and accept none themselves, with the added problem of not paying you, they wont even deal with you if there are problems.


  • Options
    #158
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    " If a buy to let property is uninhabitable following an insured loss"

    Afaik that means it the property is flooded or burned or something similar but not If the tenant stops paying rent

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/landlords-can-insure-against-tenants-defaulting-on-rent-1.2973758


  • Options
    #159
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    But didn't the same happen for everyone no matter what the business.
    E.g Plumber, Electrician, Software Developer. In all cases taxes went up and business dropped with the recession meaning less money coming in.

    Mortgage interest relief is now going back to 100%

    Fair enough there should be better measures brought in to reduce the risk from overholding which could easily wipe out a landlord.
    But otherwise it it that much different to other businesses.

    No the same thing didn't happen. Landlord got all those increase plus USC and PRSI added to gross rental income. LPT and PRTB charges were also added. That was on top of rents dropping and their working incomes also having the tax increases everyone else got with many losing salary or complete jobs. The 100% tax relief on interest was also reduced. Reinstating it is good but it should never have been reduced.

    Tax deductions on rental property are treated differently than business tax so it is radically different.


  • Options
    #160
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    Yes rent can be increased by 4% in a rpz after one year - how is that relevant if the tenant is not paying any rent?

    4% of nothing is nothing...

    You said

    "You are also not considering that most businesses can charge more to other customers to offset a loss from a non-paying customer...As far as I know that option is not available to A LL."

    Landlords can charge more to other customers.

    If you only have one property, then you should factor in the risk of non-payment when setting rent. or get insurance. or lease to the council.


  • Options
    #161
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    RayCun wrote: »
    Insurance?

    Do you think landlords are the only people who have to deal with potential losses of income?
    Do you think property investments should be risk-free?

    Why not lease to the local authority?
    https://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/do-you-have-a-property-to-let.aspx

    "If you have a residential property and would be interested in leasing it for 10 years or more, you can:
    Get guaranteed rent.
    Avoid losing rent during vacant periods."

    If you know where 'LL insurance for loss of rent & tenant damage can be found please share...

    The local council scheme might not suit everyone as it runs for ten years and individuals circumstances can change.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    1874 wrote: »
    Also letting to a local authority is not without risks, they place all the responsibility of dealing with the tenant on a LL and accept none themselves, with the added problem of not paying you, they wont even deal with you if there are problems.

    Not according to the information booklet
    During the term of the lease:
    • The local authority/AHB will guarantee payments to the owner.
    • Payment will continue regardless of vacancy periods.
    • The local authority/AHB will be responsible for day-to-day property
    maintenance.
    • The local authority/AHB will be the landlord to tenants.
    In addition, property owners who have leased their properties to a local
    authority will:
    • Have no rent collection or rent arrears obligations.
    • Not incur advertising or administrative overheads.
    • Not have to register the Tenancy with the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB).


  • Options
    #163
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    If you know where 'LL insurance for loss of rent & tenant damage can be found please share...

    https://rentassured.ie/


  • Options
    #164
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    The local council scheme might not suit everyone as it runs for ten years and individuals circumstances can change.

    So the landlord's lot is a uniquely difficult one, because they choose to invest in property and want a guaranteed income from the property but don't want to enter a long-term arrangement that will guarantee that income.


  • Options
    #165
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    RayCun wrote: »
    So the landlord's lot is a uniquely difficult one, because they choose to invest in property and want a guaranteed income from the property but don't want to enter a long-term arrangement that will guarantee that income.

    The rent is also below market rate and the standards of the property are higher than normal rentals.

    It isn't we want a guaranteed it is we don't want the government to heap charges on us and treat us unfavourably as a business for tax purposes and unfavourable with legal protection.

    We get it you don't care about landlords and think they should pay as much tax as possible and provide a service in a loss making manner to insure cheap rent.

    Just explain how you think it is sustainable given rental investment has plummeted, less rentals and higher demand. You are looking at the tip of the iceberg if it continues because there are going to be less properties to rent. We have a huge lack of construction which isn't going to increase without investment. If you think the government can get their act together and provide all the housing you will be waiting till they catch up with the current mess and by that time it will be much worse.

    It doesn't matter if you think landlords are making enough money those that invest don't see it that way and won't do it. I can tell you I won't build on land I have because it isn't worth it. I don't know anybody entertaining buying to rent. in this country. I will likely sell up in 6 years and invest elsewhere and it will be out of the country. I am not the only one.


  • Options
    #166
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    The rent is also below market rate and the standards of the property are higher than normal rentals.

    Yes, for an income guaranteed for ten years, and no need to deal with tenants.

    Really, what more could you ask for?
    You can be an independent landlord, taking the risks but also taking the profits from a market where rents are sky-high.
    You could be an independent landlord, and offset some of the risks by buying insurance.
    Or you can pass all the risks on to the council, for a guaranteed income.

    Or, if you don't like any of those options, you can sell your property - again, prices are sky-high - and invest in something else.
    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    We get it you don't care about landlords and think they should pay as much tax as possible and provide a service in a loss making manner to insure cheap rent.

    No, I don't. If you want to be a landlord, fine. If you don't think you can be a landlord without making a loss, then fine, don't be a landlord.
    Just spare me the complaints about how persecuted you are, thanks.
    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    I can tell you I won't build on land I have because it isn't worth it.

    Ideally, you'd be taxed on that. Use it or sell it to someone who will.


  • Options
    #167
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    We have a huge lack of construction which isn't going to increase without investment.

    Do you live in Leitrim? Donegal, maybe?


  • Options
    #168
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    RayCun wrote: »
    Yes, for an income guaranteed for ten years, and no need to deal with tenants.

    Really, what more could you ask for?
    You can be an independent landlord, taking the risks but also taking the profits from a market where rents are sky-high.
    You could be an independent landlord, and offset some of the risks by buying insurance.
    Or you can pass all the risks on to the council, for a guaranteed income.

    Or, if you don't like any of those options, you can sell your property - again, prices are sky-high - and invest in something else.


    What planet exactly are you living on ?


    You clearly have not one iota on what you are pontificating.


    These 10 year schemes you are talking about whereby the council guarantee everything with NO risks and NO dealing with the tenants DO NOT EXIST.


  • Options
    #169
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    STB. wrote: »
    These 10 year schemes you are talking about whereby the council guarantee everything with NO risks and NO dealing with the tenants DO NOT EXIST.

    https://www.housingagency.ie/Housing-Information/Do-You-Have-a-Property-to-Let/Final_Social-Leasing-Brochure_Web-pdf.pdf


  • Options
    #170
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    RayCun wrote: »
    https://www.housingagency.ie/Housing-Information/Do-You-Have-a-Property-to-Let/Final_Social-Leasing-Brochure_Web-pdf.pdf


    Thanks for the fancy brochure. Heres the real life stuff.

    Council insist that house is brought up to some form of housing that they dont provide themselves.

    Bit like HAP the tenant stops paying the council, the council stop paying you.

    All those property checks that are meant to happen, don't.

    Tenant decides not to use the shower and just pour water over themselves in your bathroom (hey its apparently a cultural thing) place gets wrecked, you get the bill.

    Tenant wont leave, deliberately overholds ? You are on your own with the PRTB. No rent, lengthy process, no comeback, big bills.

    RAS, HAP, Keep changing the name, but nothing changes.

    Real World.


  • Options
    #171
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    In the short term option, the landlord continues to deal with the tenant.
    In the long term option, they don't.
    Or are you saying that this is all completely made up?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    RayCun wrote: »
    and all businesses have problems with non-payment from customers. A landlord could have a tenant occupying their property and not paying rent, so they lose revenue. A plumber or a software developer could spend time doing work, thus missing out on other work, and spend months trying to get the money they are owed.

    I doubt many would expose themselves to the amounts a LL is exposed to losing.


  • Options
    #173
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    beauf wrote: »
    I doubt many would expose themselves to the amounts a LL is exposed to losing.

    On the other hand, a landlord can get a good tenant in who stays for years, pays on time, and is no trouble at all. Few other businesses offer that kind of return.


  • Options
    #174
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    RayCun wrote: »
    In the short term option, the landlord continues to deal with the tenant.
    In the long term option, they don't.
    Or are you saying that this is all completely made up?


    Short term, Long term, any problem at all.

    Landlords have much comfort in knowing that when it comes to pursuing problems, they will be left on their own to deal with the PRTB even if it comes to regaining control, of their own property, months out of pocket with no rent. Hey the PRTB may even find in the property owners favour to the tune of thousands. But that piece of paper is really only worth using to wipe your arse because you havent a hope of getting the money back, ever.

    And the fun doesn't stop there, now that you have your keys back, any damage done will be at your cost. The Council will laugh at you. Read the contracts, not the brochures.

    Yes Ray, welcome to the real world


  • Options
    #175
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    You realize the lease option is different from both the options you mentioned, right?


  • Options
    #176
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    RayCun wrote: »

    Or, if you don't like any of those options, you can sell your property - again, prices are sky-high - and invest in something else.

    That means people will make a loss but I see you don't care.
    RayCun wrote: »
    No, I don't. If you want to be a landlord, fine. If you don't think you can be a landlord without making a loss, then fine, don't be a landlord.
    Just spare me the complaints about how persecuted you are, thanks.

    You see this is where you lose the point of any reasonableness. Most landlords have been tenants along with having friends and relatives who are tenants. We want things to be even. You are completely disregarding the landlords because it somehow morally offends you.

    You are literally saying landlords must lose money not accept losses may happen. Says it all
    RayCun wrote: »
    Ideally, you'd be taxed on that. Use it or sell it to someone who will.

    I won't be as it is part of another property :P

    I assume you use everything you own all the time or do you think people should just start charging you to own it or just take it off you. It isn't like their are laws protecting land ownership or do you think we should return to the ways of English rule?


  • Options
    #177
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    RayCun wrote: »
    You realize the lease option is different from both the options you mentioned, right?

    You realise that I didn't mention two options at all. I responded to your question about whether the landlord has to deal with tenants in the short term or long term and my answer was always.

    The lease option is nothing new. The scheme names can change all they want. When push comes to shove the standard contracts that are produced are not worth the paper they are written on.

    The landlord IS left with the bills regardless. Light touch regulation, no social housing policies in the last 10 years, social housing obligations enforced on private property owners. All for 80%.

    Who in their right mind would sign up to such shíte.


  • Options
    #178
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    You will not find an insurance product that covers rental losses like you are suggesting. It also requires an additional policy. Same goes for payment protection which you won't get for rental property.

    The buy to let's were given out before the government added the extra taxes and costs.

    You would have needed an exceptionally large margin to deal with the extra tax. People here are claiming the only margin of profit is when the mortgage is paid off. You do get it totalled 10%+ of gross rent for some?

    The government moved the goal posts while rent dropped. Do you think that was fair and reasonable?

    Fact remains they were badly over extended. Regardless of any changes. It wasn't the changes that tipped the balance for this couple.

    As for the other stuff. If you're not making enough to cover taxes as your suggesting then it's not viable. End of.

    The issue for me is not the taxes. Its that potential losses are too high for the potential income. There are ways to offset that if you are a larger LL but not a smaller one.


  • Options
    #179
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    RayCun wrote: »
    On the other hand, a landlord can get a good tenant in who stays for years, pays on time, and is no trouble at all. Few other businesses offer that kind of return.

    Do you own a house? Do you know how much general maintenance is involved? A tenant who pays on time and causes no trouble is the basic requirement not a "good" tenant they are just a tenant. Their showers still break, heating stops working, appliances break etc... That still requires work.

    Their are horror stories from HAP and it's various incarnations and lots of property costs much more to rent out.

    It means this great deal you are talking about is
      Not as good as you think Not financially possible A long term commitment that may not suit Your property may not pass higher requirements Requires a lower income

    So it is only a subset of properties and landlords that can avail and it isn't even that good. So somethings to not like about it


  • Options
    #180
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    RayCun wrote: »
    On the other hand, a landlord can get a good tenant in who stays for years, pays on time, and is no trouble at all. Few other businesses offer that kind of return.

    What do you think is the return into your hand on 1500 rent after tax, costs


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    beauf wrote: »
    Fact remains they were badly over extended. Regardless of any changes. It wasn't the changes that tipped the balance for this couple.

    As for the other stuff. If you're not making enough to cover taxes as your suggesting then it's not viable. End of.

    The issue for me is not the taxes. Its that potential losses are too high for the potential income. There are ways to offset that if you are a larger LL but not a smaller one.

    What margin do you think they should have had for them to not have been "over-extended"?

    Are you saying that when taxes are increased and that makes your investment nonviable that is not a tax issue?

    Fine if you wouldn't take the risk but do you not see that a sudden increase in taxes and expenses was an unexpected thing? That is on top of all the other risks a risk you wouldn't even consider by the government who are apparently always doing landlords favours.


Advertisement