RTE report- pace of rent inflation slowing- but landlords leaving sector

The_Conductor

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1213/1016879-rent_index/

Synopsis:

Pace of rent increases is slowing from an annual increase of 3.6% in Q2 to 1.9% in Q3- with the bulk of the increase focused on certain property types (notably apartments in Dublin, Cork and Galway).

Number of landlords and the overall number of verifiable tenancies- are both falling- with an absolute fall in the number of landlords of about 1,700- representing a little over 9,000 properties (which it appears were almost exclusively sold as PPRs to owner occupiers- rather than to other landlords).

Concentration in new properties is apartments- numbers of other property types in freefall.

The exodus of landlords from the sector seems to be further gathering pace.

The Student

The_Conductor wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1213/1016879-rent_index/

Synopsis:

Pace of rent increases is slowing from an annual increase of 3.6% in Q2 to 1.9% in Q3- with the bulk of the increase focused on certain property types (notably apartments in Dublin, Cork and Galway).

Number of landlords and the overall number of verifiable tenancies- are both falling- with an absolute fall in the number of landlords of about 1,700- representing a little over 9,000 properties (which it appears were almost exclusively sold as PPRs to owner occupiers- rather than to other landlords).

Concentration in new properties is apartments- numbers of other property types in freefall.

The exodus of landlords from the sector seems to be further gathering pace.

And the exodus will continue until a more balanced approach to landlords and tenants is taken.

Assetbacked

Renting workers need respite; the last 6 years their pockets have been hit harder and harder. If we lost 50% of the gains the past 4 years in rent that would be a significant boost to the morale of those working. Hopefully we will now see a shift back in favour of renters the next few years.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Assetbacked wrote: »

Renting workers need respite; the last 6 years their pockets have been hit harder and harder. If we lost 50% of the gains the past 4 years in rent that would be a significant boost to the morale of those working. Hopefully we will now see a shift back in favour of renters the next few years.

With less supply how do you figure thats going to happen. The government are now starting to reap what they sowed. There's a drive to remove the small time landlord from the market and replace them with large institutional investors. You can bet your last euro that these companies will never let the rent go below market value. All possible rent hikes will be passed on tenants from now on. More grim times in the city I think

Hack12

I'm an accidental landlord and also a renter. Honestly I can see why people are leaving the sector and personally I cannot wait not to be a landlord anymore. Between regulation and taxation it just simple isn't worth it.

There is also an issue that it's near impossible to get rid of bad tenants. It's the only business (and it is business whether you agree or not) where someone can rob you (not paying rent) and the State agrees this is ok until certain parameters are met.

People also need to realise that renting shouldn't be cheaper than buying as the landlord has to upkeep of the property to take into account.

As a tenant yes it is annoying rents going up, frustration over will I ever own a home again and all that goes with that but there is a bigger issue here and it's down to Government policy. The cost has sky rocketed as a landlord with income tax, PRSI, LPT (which is not tax deductable) etc. The only real winners of all of this has been the Revenue Commissioners.

runawaybishop

Assetbacked wrote: »

Renting workers need respite; the last 6 years their pockets have been hit harder and harder. If we lost 50% of the gains the past 4 years in rent that would be a significant boost to the morale of those working. Hopefully we will now see a shift back in favour of renters the next few years.

How do you see that happening. Previous government policy has only forced rents up. This one will do the same.

Claw Hammer

Assetbacked wrote: »

Renting workers need respite; the last 6 years their pockets have been hit harder and harder. If we lost 50% of the gains the past 4 years in rent that would be a significant boost to the morale of those working. Hopefully we will now see a shift back in favour of renters the next few years.

Renting workers need lower rent. More landlords offering more properties to rent would help that to come about. The carry-on that is now happening with a focus on rent freezes and rent registers is lunacy.

Moonjet

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

With less supply how do you figure thats going to happen. The government are now starting to reap what they sowed. There's a drive to remove the small time landlord from the market and replace them with large institutional investors. You can bet your last euro that these companies will never let the rent go below market value. All possible rent hikes will be passed on tenants from now on. More grim times in the city I think

Exactly, our new landlords are the likes of Hines (who have $116 billion of assets on their books) and who are building 1,269 apartments as part of the Cherrywood town centre development.



If a small Irish landlord with 1 or 2 properties gets a problem tenant, who stops paying rent for a few years it can cripple the landlord financially.



For the likes of Hines, it's just a trivial annoyance they pass on to their legal department to resolve.

Increased supply lowering rents doesn't work when most of the supply is controlled by a small group of international REITs, which is the direction we're heading.

the_syco

Assetbacked wrote: »

Hopefully we will now see a shift back in favour of renters the next few years.

Due to government policy, rents will only go up, and never down, because if a landlord is nice to a tenant (and doesn't raise the rent), he's shooting themselves in the foot as they can't up the rent to market levels should the nice tenant ever leave.

[Url=https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1213/1016879-rent_index/]RTE Article[/url] wrote:

However, the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers (IPAV) said a report commissioned by the RTB in 2014 had predicted that rent controls would force landlords from the market and it had been entirely predictable that this would happen.

"That study said rent regulations would see the impact falling disproportionately hard on the very people they are intended to assist," said Pat Davitt, IPAV Chief Executive.

"In addition, the European Commission warned that rent controls have had a destabilising impact on housing markets in other EU countries."

"Yet we seem hell bent on further regulating the market."

The irony; the politicians who wanted to cap the rent are the cause for there being less places to rent.

Ray Palmer

They are also calling for TDs that are landlords to not be allowed vote in matters relating to housing now. Government policy has been particularly bad on landlords and somehow it is still felt the government have a vested interest for landlords. It is so weird that the public believe the exact opposite of what has happened.

No such calls for the the pub owners when the minimum pricing bill was being voted on and that is completely protectionary for them.

The Student

Assetbacked wrote: »

Renting workers need respite; the last 6 years their pockets have been hit harder and harder. If we lost 50% of the gains the past 4 years in rent that would be a significant boost to the morale of those working. Hopefully we will now see a shift back in favour of renters the next few years.

A simple fix is to extend the rent a room scheme to landlords. That way tenants rent decreases, a landlords income remains the same and the tenant can save a deposit for a house purchase.

You do understand that with the problem of evicting non paying tenants is the single biggest problem we have and the greatest power a tenant has with no recourse against them.

Lux23

I can understand that landlords may feel hard done by, but why invest in the sector if you're not prepared to provide a safe and secure home to someone? It's not just about making money; you do it because you might want to provide a service that benefits society as a whole. If you just want to make money, invest in something else.

The Student

Lux23 wrote: »

I can understand that landlords may feel hard done by, but why invest in the sector if you're not prepared to provide a safe and secure home to someone? It's not just about making money; you do it because you might want to provide a service that benefits society as a whole. If you just want to make money, invest in something else.

The longterm provision of a home is the State's responsibility. There is a demand for lets of a couple of years at a time which is exactly where the private landlord should be.

Currently property is providing the best returns assuming you don't get a rogue tenant.

With all of the Govt's meddling the sector is just to volatile. What other business is forced to continue providing a service knowing full well it will not be paid for?

10pennymixup

Lux23 wrote: »

I can understand that landlords may feel hard done by, but why invest in the sector if you're not prepared to provide a safe and secure home to someone? It's not just about making money; you do it because you might want to provide a service that benefits society as a whole. If you just want to make money, invest in something else.

That is exactly whats happening, LL's are getting out and investing elsewhere.

JimmyMW

Lux23 wrote: »

I can understand that landlords may feel hard done by, but why invest in the sector if you're not prepared to provide a safe and secure home to someone? It's not just about making money; you do it because you might want to provide a service that benefits society as a whole. If you just want to make money, invest in something else.

Total BS, Money is always the bottom line, in fact that where the phrase "the bottom line" comes from, money is always No1 with investments

The_Conductor

Lux23 wrote: »

I can understand that landlords may feel hard done by, but why invest in the sector if you're not prepared to provide a safe and secure home to someone? It's not just about making money; you do it because you might want to provide a service that benefits society as a whole. If you just want to make money, invest in something else.

Most landlords (with the exception of accidental landlords) are in it purely as a business. The current environment- is not conducive to running letting residential property- as a business- which is why so many are abandoning the sector.

Landlords are not in it for the good of society- they are in it to run a business- and when you try to argue that they have to want to provide a service that benefits society- you're misrepresenting the motivation behind operating in the sector.

It is a business- pure and simple. Once you move away from this business relationship- you end up mired in controversy- and in a situation where the absolute numbers of landlords and properties let in the sector- are falling.

Even allowing for all the new apartment complexes that are only available for renting- the absolute numbers of properties in the rental sector in Ireland- are falling. Surely this should be raising red flags? Instead- its not- for whatever reason- and the Minister is insistent on getting the boot in again.

It suits the politicians to view landlords as whipping boys- because any blame for politicians failure to fulfil *their* obligations- which are societal obligations- can be shoved onto someone who has no such societal obligations.

Private sector landlords should not be involved in social housing- the government and local authorities- alone- should be tasked with fulfilling any social housing obligations or needs in Irish society. Trying to privatise this obligation- because the government stopped building social housing units in the early 80s- and actually encouraged local authorities to sell off their housing stocks- has been shown to quite simply not work- yet- they continue to flog this dead horse.

We need a much greater social housing requirement- ideally delivered by the public sector- and the rules changed such that public sector residential property remains public sector rental property- in perpetuity. Selling council housing- is nuts- and must stop.

At the moment- the societal argument- that landlords owe society- rather than viewing the transaction as a business transaction- is at least in part- what is driving the current regulatory environment- and driving small scale landlords to abandon the sector. It is accelerating- yet all the Minister plans- are further onerous regulations that will simply further accelerate departures from the sector.

On the Brightside- it does mean there are secondhand properties hitting the market for those who wish to buy property and have access to funds. However- that doesn't help all those who are trying to find somewhere to live- just the small subsector who are in a position to buy...........

The current system is a mess. The proposals are to deepen the mess.

amcalester

Lux23 wrote: »

I can understand that landlords may feel hard done by, but why invest in the sector if you're not prepared to provide a safe and secure home to someone? It's not just about making money; you do it because you might want to provide a service that benefits society as a whole. If you just want to make money, invest in something else.

In a functioning market only the landlords who provide a safe and secure home would survive but we don’t have a functioning market. That’s the first issue.

Second issue is that if you want the private sector to provide an essential public service then the government needs to make it attractive to investors.

listermint

Ive yet to see a 'real' landlord on this forum indicate they are leaving the sector. By real i mean not accidental and more than 1 property.

I have seen many (you know who you are) complain and complain, but none seem to have left the sector and 'make investments elsewhere' and 'bottom line is bottom line'


Why is that.....

Moonjet

listermint wrote: »

Ive yet to see a 'real' landlord on this forum indicate they are leaving the sector. By real i mean not accidental and more than 1 property.

The stats are in the article OP posted:

Today there are 1,778 fewer landlords than there were three years ago

Just because they aren't posting on boards doesn't mean it's not happening.

10pennymixup

listermint wrote: »

Ive yet to see a 'real' landlord on this forum indicate they are leaving the sector. By real i mean not accidental and more than 1 property.

I have seen many (you know who you are) complain and complain, but none seem to have left the sector and 'make investments elsewhere' and 'bottom line is bottom line'


Why is that.....

I have.

2nd last one goes on the market next year.

Franz Von Peppercorn

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

With less supply how do you figure thats going to happen. The government are now starting to reap what they sowed. There's a drive to remove the small time landlord from the market and replace them with large institutional investors. You can bet your last euro that these companies will never let the rent go below market value. All possible rent hikes will be passed on tenants from now on. More grim times in the city I think

Ive rented below market from a large institutional landlord before.

Graces7

The Student wrote: »

The longterm provision of a home is the State's responsibility.

There is a demand for lets of a couple of years at a time which is exactly where the private landlord should be.

Currently property is providing the best returns assuming you don't get a rogue tenant.

With all of the Govt's meddling the sector is just to volatile. What other business is forced to continue providing a service knowing full well it will not be paid for?

could you expand on and qualify that please?

Gumbo

listermint wrote: »

Ive yet to see a 'real' landlord on this forum indicate they are leaving the sector. By real i mean not accidental and more than 1 property.

I have seen many (you know who you are) complain and complain, but none seem to have left the sector and 'make investments elsewhere' and 'bottom line is bottom line'


Why is that.....

Some real landlords may only have one property too......

The Student

Graces7 wrote: »

could you expand on and qualify that please?

The long term provision of a home for those who can't afford a home is the States responsibility.

The Student

listermint wrote: »

Ive yet to see a 'real' landlord on this forum indicate they are leaving the sector. By real i mean not accidental and more than 1 property.

I have seen many (you know who you are) complain and complain, but none seem to have left the sector and 'make investments elsewhere' and 'bottom line is bottom line'


Why is that.....

So the official figs released indicate a drop in both landlords and available properties. Are you suggesting that the drop is down solely to individual/accidental landlords.

If the return is so attractive why would anybody leave a sector with such good returns. Surely the time to get out would have been when the returns where not so good.

Perhaps landlords are leaving the market because of the anti landlord stance, the inability to evict non paying tenants, the risk involved does not reflect the reward if you are a small landlord and you get a rogue tenant.

Lux23

JimmyMW wrote: »

Total BS, Money is always the bottom line, in fact that where the phrase "the bottom line" comes from, money is always No1 with investments

Then why become a landlord? It must be more profitable than the poor-mouthers of A&P let on.

Lux23

amcalester wrote: »

In a functioning market only the landlords who provide a safe and secure home would survive but we don’t have a functioning market. That’s the first issue.

Second issue is that if you want the private sector to provide an essential public service then the government needs to make it attractive to investors.

I understand both of these things, I agree that the State shouldn't be relying on the private sector to provide housing to thousands of families, but there would be an awful lot of single property landlords out of pocket if the country suddenly started building homes for everyone that wanted to rent one.

noodler

I've had better experiences with large landlords tbh.

Ray Palmer

listermint wrote: »

I have seen many (you know who you are) complain and complain, but none seem to have left the sector and 'make investments elsewhere' and 'bottom line is bottom line'

I am selling one of my properties and said so before. Will sell another close to it too if it works out.

the_syco

Lux23 wrote: »

Then why become a landlord? It must be more profitable than the poor-mouthers of A&P let on.

It was. But now, due to increased regulations, and making it illegal not to accept those that receive HAP, means that landlords have to upgrade their houses but not make said money back.

runawaybishop

Lux23 wrote: »

Then why become a landlord? It must be more profitable than the poor-mouthers of A&P let on.

People aren't becoming landlords, that's the problem. Rents are massively increased and yet landlords aren't signing up in their thousands due to the overregulation in the market. Honestly, you'd want to be mental or a huge corp to become a landlord these days

Lux23

runawaybishop wrote: »

People aren't becoming landlords, that's the problem. Rents are massively increased and yet landlords aren't signing up in their thousands due to the overregulation in the market. Honestly, you'd want to be mental or a huge corp to become a landlord these days

And you would want to be mental to choose life as a tenant in this country. I'm renting 13 years, and it's appalling what I am expected to pay for a hovel.

runawaybishop

Lux23 wrote: »

And you would want to be mental to choose life as a tenant in this country. I'm renting 13 years, and it's appalling what I am expected to pay for a hovel.

You think having less properties to rent will help with that?

listermint

The Student wrote: »

So the official figs released indicate a drop in both landlords and available properties. Are you suggesting that the drop is down solely to individual/accidental landlords.

If the return is so attractive why would anybody leave a sector with such good returns. Surely the time to get out would have been when the returns where not so good.

Perhaps landlords are leaving the market because of the anti landlord stance, the inability to evict non paying tenants, the risk involved does not reflect the reward if you are a small landlord and you get a rogue tenant.

Actually yes i would, Those figures are not high. And the presumption that they are professional landlords is just that.

A Presumption. There is no evidence that these were professional individuals that made a business of renting residential lettings.

The market is back up, people would obviously be offloading first homes. (pre partner homes) or homes they had been left through berievement or what not.

To tie the figures to some professional class of landlords exciting the sector is suspect to say the least and it obviously suits an agenda setter.

runawaybishop

listermint wrote: »

Actually yes i would, Those figures are not high. And the presumption that they are professional landlords is just that.

A Presumption. There is no evidence that these were professional individuals that made a business of renting residential lettings.

The market is back up, people would obviously be offloading first homes. (pre partner homes) or homes they had been left through berievement or what not.

To tie the figures to some professional class of landlords exciting the sector is suspect to say the least and it obviously suits an agenda setter.

We need more REITs who certainly will not rise the rent to the max as soon as possible. A sound bunch of lads indeed.

Lux23

runawaybishop wrote: »

You think having less properties to rent will help with that?

No, but if there were more houses to buy maybe I would have gotten out of rental market faster. Surely the landlords are selling the houses to owner-occupiers if landlords aren't buying them? It's not like the houses are just disappearing because Jimmy is annoyed he can't charge whatever he likes?

Ray Palmer

listermint wrote: »

Actually yes i would, Those figures are not high. And the presumption that they are professional landlords is just that.

A Presumption. There is no evidence that these were professional individuals that made a business of renting residential lettings.

The market is back up, people would obviously be offloading first homes. (pre partner homes) or homes they had been left through berievement or what not.

To tie the figures to some professional class of landlords exciting the sector is suspect to say the least and it obviously suits an agenda setter.

80% of rental properties are owned as just one property rented. The is a very small number of large landlords in Ireland. There are very few "professional" landlords in the way you are suggesting

listermint

Ray Palmer wrote: »

80% of rental properties are owned as just one property rented. The is a very small number of large landlords in Ireland. There are very few "professional" landlords in the way you are suggesting

I didnt suggest it.

The OP did as did several others.

listermint

runawaybishop wrote: »

We need more REITs who certainly will not rise the rent to the max as soon as possible. A sound bunch of lads indeed.

Who said we do? I didnt.


But i will say that i was under a REIT for 3 years with no problems. Very professional setup and facilities guys onsite.

(that was my only experience of a REIT) not that im advocating for more of them either.

Moonjet

Ray Palmer wrote: »

80% of rental properties are owned as just one property rented.

Any source on this stat? Not doubting it's true, just like to see more detail.

DubCount

I must have read 100 or more threads on here where landlords (professional, accidental and former landlords who have already left the market) have said the volume of regulations (RPZs, discrimination against HAP, legal requirements on all notices and correspondence with tenants.....) together with inability to deal with non-paying or anti-social tenants, has made the risk/hastle v return just not worth it. Surprise, surprise, there are stats released showing rents increasing, but landlords still leaving the market. Sadly, there are just easier ways to turn a coin.

Being a landlord is an investment choice, not an act of social conscience. The more regulations we get (increased notice periods and fines of up to €30k for breaching RPZ rules just examples of the latest kick to Landlords) and the more regulations that are floated (banning evictions for sale or family members to move in, banning evictions outright etc.), the more landlords leave, and the more expensive renting will become.

We're making the same mistake over and over again, and expecting a different result. The next set of stats will show more rent inflation and less landlords/rental properties. Why would anyone expect anything else?

AlmightyCushion

DubCount wrote: »

I must have read 100 or more threads on here where landlords (professional, accidental and former landlords who have already left the market) have said the volume of regulations (RPZs, discrimination against HAP, legal requirements on all notices and correspondence with tenants.....) together with inability to deal with non-paying or anti-social tenants, has made the risk/hastle v return just not worth it. Surprise, surprise, there are stats released showing rents increasing, but landlords still leaving the market. Sadly, there are just easier ways to turn a coin.

Being a landlord is an investment choice, not an act of social conscience. The more regulations we get (increased notice periods and fines of up to €30k for breaching RPZ rules just examples of the latest kick to Landlords) and the more regulations that are floated (banning evictions for sale or family members to move in, banning evictions outright etc.), the more landlords leave, and the more expensive renting will become.

We're making the same mistake over and over again, and expecting a different result. The next set of stats will show more rent inflation and less landlords/rental properties. Why would anyone expect anything else?

I love that you consider receiving a fine for breaking the law as a "kick". The cheek of the state for trying to implement consequences for breaking the law.

Moonjet

DubCount wrote: »

I must have read 100 or more threads on here where landlords (professional, accidental and former landlords who have already left the market) have said the volume of regulations (RPZs, discrimination against HAP, legal requirements on all notices and correspondence with tenants.....) together with inability to deal with non-paying or anti-social tenants, has made the risk/hastle v return just not worth it. Surprise, surprise, there are stats released showing rents increasing, but landlords still leaving the market. Sadly, there are just easier ways to turn a coin.

Being a landlord is an investment choice, not an act of social conscience. The more regulations we get (increased notice periods and fines of up to €30k for breaching RPZ rules just examples of the latest kick to Landlords) and the more regulations that are floated (banning evictions for sale or family members to move in, banning evictions outright etc.), the more landlords leave, and the more expensive renting will become.

We're making the same mistake over and over again, and expecting a different result. The next set of stats will show more rent inflation and less landlords/rental properties. Why would anyone expect anything else?

Banning evictions outright is so ridiculous an idea it could even drive the REITs away imo. What incentive would anyone have for paying their rent?

Looks like it's going ahead too:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/anti-eviction-bill-passed-in-the-dail-891878.html

Solidarity/PBP are complete loons.

KevinCavan

It’s quite possible landlords are taxed to the eyeballs, I don’t know, as I rent. But whatever is going on, the rents we pay here are nuts. In other European capitals and major European cities, rents are much lower, meaning tenants can still enjoy life. Here you are working to pay rent and quite possibly landlords are renting to fill the pockets of the revenue commissioners.

Mad_maxx

KevinCavan wrote: »

It’s quite possible landlords are taxed to the eyeballs, I don’t know, as I rent. But whatever is going on, the rents we pay here are nuts. In other European capitals and major European cities, rents are much lower, meaning tenants can still enjoy life. Here you are working to pay rent and quite possibly landlords are renting to fill the pockets of the revenue commissioners.

Which European capital with the level of wealth Dublin has is cheaper?

Vienna is cheaper to rent but more expensive to buy.

KevinCavan

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Which European capital with the level of wealth Dublin has is cheaper?

Vienna is cheaper to rent but more expensive to buy.

German cities for one are much cheaper than Dublin or Cork and wages can be quite high.

The_Conductor

Moonjet wrote: »

Any source on this stat? Not doubting it's true, just like to see more detail.

Page 2 of the RTB annual report published last July states:

The overall landlord profile has remained relatively stable with the majority of the 174,000 landlords (86%) owning 1-2 properties.

Link here

DubCount

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I love that you consider receiving a fine for breaking the law as a "kick". The cheek of the state for trying to implement consequences for breaking the law.

So a LL renovates a property, in good faith believes this has changed the nature of the property, but is ruled not to be a change in nature by the RTB, is the subject of a fine of €30k.

A LL rounds up the 4% calculation in stead of rounding down. Its a technical breach of the law, is that worthy of a several thousand Euro fine.

I have no problem with enforcing the law of the land. But what about tenants overholding, or tenants not paying rent, or tenants subletting property without permission, or tenants damaging property.....

If you only change the law in favour of tenants, landlords will leave, and tenants will pay more.

Hack12

Can people not see wood for the threes on why rents are so high. They are exceeding the "boom" for reasons that landlords have no control over.

My property which was my PPR in the boom would have rented for E1,100 and it is rented for E1,300 at present. So an increase of E200 per month (it was down to E850 per month which lead to me to restructure the mortgage with the bank).

- Take in that LPT is payable by the landlord (mine is E30ish a month) and is not tax deductible. NPPR was there previously. Council taxes in other jurisdictions are paid by the tenant so this is added to the rent in Ireland. The State can increase the LPT up to 15% and yet this cannot be added to the rent for 2 years if an RPZ area and that is only within the 4% allowed under RPZ areas.
- You were only allowed expense 75%, 80% of your mortgage interest and this is to go up to 100% finally next year. This may help rents come down as the cost of doing business will reduce.
- Additional income taxes on rental income.
- Not allowed claim loan interest on repairs etc.
- RTB fees which were not there.
- Additional legislation to deal with.
- The list goes on....

The cost of being a landlord has only worked in the favour of the State as they generate more tax and also turned the private sector into there local authority housing department.

All of this has lead to people leaving and as I said in my previous post I can't wait to be not to be a landlord. If the anti eviction bill does become law, I can see a lot of banks getting jingle mail as the only reason people have not sold is because they are still in negative equity. You could be out of bankruptcy quicker than getting out of being a landlord!!!!

The madness has got to stop and good tenants looked after and equally good landlord's are protected or else there will be no investment. The communists in the dail will have the country destroyed if they keep going on like this with no investment etc coming in just as we're hitting full employment again.

Borzoi

KevinCavan wrote: »

German cities for one are much cheaper than Dublin or Cork and wages can be quite high.

Yes they are, but why...
Because the tenant typically gets an empty white box, and must return it in the same condition to the landlord. No furniture, no washing machine, no kitchen (many renters buy the kitchen from the previous tenant) . A give it a kick of white paint before handback to LL too

I would dearly love to be a LL in those circumstances ;-)

The_Conductor

Borzoi wrote: »

Yes they are, but why...
Because the tenant typically gets an empty white box, and must return it in the same condition to the landlord. No furniture, no washing machine, no kitchen (many renters buy the kitchen from the previous tenant) . A give it a kick of white paint before handback to LL too

I would dearly love to be a LL in those circumstances ;-)

Switzerland is the same- the regulatory authority there employ inspectors who check that the cupboards have been cleaned and the painting is to a satisfactory standard- before they approve the landlord pay the deposit to the renter (and the deposit is a standard 3 month's rent).

White box- surgically clean- and returned in identically a fashion + 3 months rent as a deposit. I'd love to be a landlord there!