Property Market 2019

rightmove

awec wrote: »

The thing that always amuses me about this complaining is the notion of pre-RPZs, landlords weren't increasing rent out of the goodness of their own hearts.

What's next? Discard the RPZs and we'll see rent rates plummet? Please...

My tenants never had a serious increase so I got out as caught well below. I rented during same period and rent was static. Greedy landlords always put rent up. Nice ones didn't. Now there are no more nice ones. Glad this all amuses you though

beauf

If I was starting out now in my 20s I wouldn't be trying to live in Dublin or similar. I'd be looking to emigrate. Get a better quality of life somewhere else

rightmove

beauf wrote: »

Next they will try block LL from selling which will cause a load to sell just in case.
.

All the LL that got out. Think of the combined vacancy of properties while LL were waiting to sell. My property in dublin was vacant for 8 months for example

Mickiemcfist

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

As somebody who moved 4 times in 5 years from 2008, you could negotiate well under asking on most places. The bottom end was around 200 quid above rent allowance. So cheap places stayed static, more up market properties(penthouses/large houses) tanked in price and could be picked up for a steal. I moved into a 3 bed penthouse that went from 2500+ a month to 1400 a month. I've recently seen another apartment renting for over 3k there.

A lot of people just didn't pay much attention and didn't move to take advantage of it.

Well that report I linked wasn't asking prices, it was registered tenancies. So clearly you were in the minority. The idea of moving every year to save a couple of grand a year wouldn't be my thing but if it worked for you fair play.

sweetie

I was renting a place in north dublin city and the rent dropped from 1480 to 1100 over two tenancies

Sleepy

During the recession I was renting a three bedroom terrace in Clontarf for 1,000 p/m. Tenancy started in 2010 and we were there until 2006 without any change in rent. Now, the landlord probably only heard from us once or twice in those 6 years as unless a problem was fairly major, I simply dealt with it myself. A landlord would be insane to maintain that arrangement now as by the time we'd moved out, he'd be €3,183.84 per annum below market rate for the property when trying to lease it again.

ECO_Mental

Went to view a house in Cork yesterday, 4 bed detached in a good location about 1400 sqr/ft so nothing massive and will need some renovation (new kitchen etc) but livable. Guiding at €535k

Anyway the estate agent said that the house was up last year for €620k (I think or just around the €600k) and they had an offer on it for €575k last year with a cash buyer and the owner didn't accept....even though the agent strongly recommenced.

They will now be lucky to get the €535k....that must sting for these people.

Again shooting the breeze with the agent and he says good houses will always sell, but houses that are move-in-able with no work required are what people are looking for. These old family homes that require 150-200k to totally gut and rewire are not selling as people cant get that money afterwards. Before people remortgaged or the banks gave you 110% mortgages so you could do these works.

jesus_thats_gre

sweetie wrote: »

I was renting a place in north dublin city and the rent dropped from 1480 to 1100 over two tenancies

Same here. 4 Bed place in Sandyford (brand new build) dropped from 2,300 to 1,600 a month before the owner was eventually able to sell.

Had refused offers of 800k just before we moved in and eventually sold it for 380k 4+ years later.

beauf

Exactly.

As new builds are available older houses will lose a bit of value due the refurbishment costs.
Also as affordability is capped they get squeezed between those better properties above and below their price point and in better areas.
They fall to a more correct value. Unless there is some added value in terms of being bigger, on a bigger site, or a better location.

Cyrus

ECO_Mental wrote: »

They will now be lucky to get the €535k....that must sting for these people.

depends on their motivation, if they are trading up then the likelihood is the further up the market it goes the bigger the price drops.

if its an executor sale then its a different story.

awec

99problems1 wrote: »

Rented for 4 years and rent never went up from 2013-2016. Then this rent cap came in and I had a review and increase of 15% and 4% 2 years after and another 4% this year.

It's very true.

You’re missing the point.

Rents have gone up. There is absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that rents have gone up BECAUSE of the RPZs.

To suggest this, is to suggest that without RPZs rents would be lower. It is to suggest that if RPZs were scrapped, rents would not go up any more.

This is of course complete rubbish. It’s 2+2=5.

beauf

awec wrote: »

You’re missing the point.

Rents have gone up. There is absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that rents have gone up BECAUSE of the RPZs.

To suggest this, is to suggest that without RPZs rents would be lower. It is to suggest that if RPZs were scrapped, rents would not go up any more.

This is of course complete rubbish. It’s 2+2=5.

You're missing the point. Rents are going anyway.
RPZ does nothing to stop it.
Because rising rents is a symptom not a root cause.

What it does it forces the LL to both rise rents, and leave.
It encourages new builds, at high rents, at the top end of the market.
The low end stagnates and/or shrinks.

Sound familiar?

A number of neo-classical and Keynesian economists say that some forms of rent control regulations create shortages and exacerbate scarcity in the housing market ....

The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing".[12]

They found that while San Francisco's rent control laws benefited tenants who had rent controlled units, it also resulted in landlords removing 30% of the units in the study from the rental market, (by conversion to condos or TICs) which led to a 15% citywide decrease in total rental units, and a 7% increase in citywide rents. [16]:1,44 [17] [18]:1 [19][20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_regulation

What is needed is reward for some behavior (keeping rents low) and a punitive measures against it (for rising rents).
Our RPZ actually does the opposite, it encourages low rents to leave, and high rents to enter the market.

awec

beauf wrote: »

You're missing the point. Rents are going anyway.
RPZ does nothing to stop it.
Because rising rents is a symptom not a root cause.

What it does it forces the LL to both rise rents, and leave.
It encourages new builds, at high rents, at the top end of the market.
The low end stagnates and/or shrinks.

Sound familiar?





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_regulation

What is needed is reward for some behavior (keeping rents low) and a punitive measures against it (for rising rents).
Our RPZ actually does the opposite, it encourages low rents to leave, and high rents to enter the market.

RPZ ensures that a tenant knows their rent will increase no more than 4%. It stops excessive increases, and gives tenants stability.

I am glad we agree that rents are going up anyway, and moved on from this notion that RPZs are to blame for rents going up. The notion that landlords can only guarantee themselves a 4% increase in rent every single year (if they want it) is driving landlords out of the market is a bit of a reach, in reality the number of landlords in Ireland has been dropping from long before the notion of an RPZ was even hinted at by the government.

The fact of the matter is that RPZs are not perfect, but have been relatively effective at putting the brakes on crazy rent hikes. It would be absolute political suicide for the government to scrap them and the only people celebrating would be landlords.

rightmove

awec wrote: »

You’re missing the point.

Rents have gone up. There is absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that rents have gone up BECAUSE of the RPZs.

I wanted to start putting my rent up just because of the rpz and its effect. So you are totally wrong

99problems1

awec wrote: »

RPZ ensures that a tenant knows their rent will increase no more than 4%. It stops excessive increases, and gives tenants stability.

I am glad we agree that rents are going up anyway, and moved on from this notion that RPZs are to blame for rents going up. The notion that landlords can only guarantee themselves a 4% increase in rent every single year (if they want it) is driving landlords out of the market is a bit of a reach, in reality the number of landlords in Ireland has been dropping from long before the notion of an RPZ was even hinted at by the government.

The fact of the matter is that RPZs are not perfect, but have been relatively effective at putting the brakes on crazy rent hikes. It would be absolute political suicide for the government to scrap them and the only people celebrating would be landlords.

It's such a coincidence that my rent has gone up approx. 25% in 3 years having not gone up at all beforehand then!

The 4% cap is a handy way of guaranteeing an increase without guilt. They basically told all landlords and renters that a 4% increase was to be accepted every year.

4% a year is insane.

If your rent is 1000, after 5 years it's 1216.

Why should 4% be acceptable by FG? It's digusting.

The_Conductor

awec wrote: »

RPZ ensures that a tenant knows their rent will increase no more than 4%. It stops excessive increases, and gives tenants stability. .

However, a sizeable cohort of tenants were not getting rent increases. The common practice among a large number of landlords was not to increase the rent during tenancies- only to revisit the rent when a tenancy ended and the unit was being relet. As it then became impossible to carry out this- landlords instead locked in their 4% per annum- because they couldn't revisit the rent at the end of a tenancy.

awec wrote: »

I am glad we agree that rents are going up anyway, and moved on from this notion that RPZs are to blame for rents going up. The notion that landlords can only guarantee themselves a 4% increase in rent every single year (if they want it) is driving landlords out of the market is a bit of a reach, in reality the number of landlords in Ireland has been dropping from long before the notion of an RPZ was even hinted at by the government..

Rents were going up- because demand was increasingly outstripping supply. RPZs were one element in rents going up- but only one element on a list. Lots of landlords were unhappy with the dimunition of their property rights in previous revisions to tenancy legislation- and many took the opportunity of increasing property values, to offload property from the sector.

I'd suggest the premature ending of a tax relief on capital gains for rental properties- probably was the single biggest factor that initially drove landlords from the sector- however, the RPZ legislation did not help- and subsequent revisions to the Residential Tenancies Act- notably copperfastening difficulties in retrieving property from delinquent tenants- were a claxion call to many to get out while the going was good.

awec wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that RPZs are not perfect, but have been relatively effective at putting the brakes on crazy rent hikes. It would be absolute political suicide for the government to scrap them and the only people celebrating would be landlords.

RPZs are not perfect, no. However, the manner in which they were applied, in combination with other tenant-centric legislation- made the regulatory regime toxic, in particular for small scale landlords. The incessant revisions to the Act make it difficult for even professionals to follow- however, it makes it incredibly simple for a small scale landlord to get tripped up. Before you start saying 'serves them right'- I agree too- everyone operating in the sector should be fully familiar with their rights and obligations- both tenants and landlords- however, the issue is- the rules seem to apply to landlords, but not tenants. All a tenant has to do is plead penury- and it doesn't matter what mayhem they have caused, their slate is wiped clean. Landlords on the otherhand- are viewed as having money which can be shook from them for whatever purpose the RTB decide- most recently, the insistence on annual registrations of tenancies- all the while the average length of tenancies has increased- is viewed as a naked attempt at a shake-down.

There is a perception that the rules apply to landlords- but not tenants- and the best case scenario a landlord can look forward to from a delinquint tenant- is vacant possession of their unit- regardless of how much damage or rent arrears a tenant has accumulated- while a tenant can bring spurious cases against landlords expecting a payday. There is a lack of equality- both in fact- and in the manner in which the sector is reported on in the media.

Even playing devil's advocate and trying to look at particular cases from different perspectives- leaves us open in this forum to being called right winged nazis- when all we're trying to do is look at the facts of cases.

Right now- the regulatory regime (including the tax regime) is such, and landlords are tarred in such a manner- that it makes little sense for small scale landlords to operate in the sector- and all the sense in the world- for large scale property developers to pile into the sector. This cannot be right- but it is what a lot of people have called for.

awec

The_Conductor wrote: »

However, a sizeable cohort of tenants were not getting rent increases. The common practice among a large number of landlords was not to increase the rent during tenancies- only to revisit the rent when a tenancy ended and the unit was being relet. As it then became impossible to carry out this- landlords instead locked in their 4% per annum- because they couldn't revisit the rent at the end of a tenancy.

This is purely anecdotal. If you believed this forum, landlords never put their rent up. Ever.

Rents were going up- because demand was increasingly outstripping supply. RPZs were one element in rents going up- but only one element on a list. Lots of landlords were unhappy with the dimunition of their property rights in previous revisions to tenancy legislation- and many took the opportunity of increasing property values, to offload property from the sector.

I'd suggest the premature ending of a tax relief on capital gains for rental properties- probably was the single biggest factor that initially drove landlords from the sector- however, the RPZ legislation did not help- and subsequent revisions to the Residential Tenancies Act- notably copperfastening difficulties in retrieving property from delinquent tenants- were a claxion call to many to get out while the going was good.



RPZs are not perfect, no. However, the manner in which they were applied, in combination with other tenant-centric legislation- made the regulatory regime toxic, in particular for small scale landlords. The incessant revisions to the Act make it difficult for even professionals to follow- however, it makes it incredibly simple for a small scale landlord to get tripped up. Before you start saying 'serves them right'- I agree too- everyone operating in the sector should be fully familiar with their rights and obligations- both tenants and landlords- however, the issue is- the rules seem to apply to landlords, but not tenants. All a tenant has to do is plead penury- and it doesn't matter what mayhem they have caused, their slate is wiped clean. Landlords on the otherhand- are viewed as having money which can be shook from them for whatever purpose the RTB decide- most recently, the insistence on annual registrations of tenancies- all the while the average length of tenancies has increased- is viewed as a naked attempt at a shake-down.

There is a perception that the rules apply to landlords- but not tenants- and the best case scenario a landlord can look forward to from a delinquint tenant- is vacant possession of their unit- regardless of how much damage or rent arrears a tenant has accumulated- while a tenant can bring spurious cases against landlords expecting a payday. There is a lack of equality- both in fact- and in the manner in which the sector is reported on in the media.

Even playing devil's advocate and trying to look at particular cases from different perspectives- leaves us open in this forum to being called right winged nazis- when all we're trying to do is look at the facts of cases.

Right now- the regulatory regime (including the tax regime) is such, and landlords are tarred in such a manner- that it makes little sense for small scale landlords to operate in the sector- and all the sense in the world- for large scale property developers to pile into the sector. This cannot be right- but it is what a lot of people have called for.

The goal of RPZs was to put the brakes on crazy rent hikes, which WERE happening, and WERE widespread despite what people on here are saying.

RPZs took the approach of fixing for the many, and making things worse for the few. For the few tenants who never saw increases (and they were certainly a minority given the stats each year consistently showed rents across the board going up and up and up and up), they suddenly saw increases. For everyone else, the brakes were applied. This is not perfect, but better than the free for all we had before.

I would not say RPZs have been an overwhelming success, or that they've fixed the problems in the rental market. But they did exactly what they were designed to do, and they did exactly what the majority wanted them to do.

The second half of your post is talking more about landlord rights vs tenant rights, and not RPZs. Different story entirely.

awec

99problems1 wrote: »

It's such a coincidence that my rent has gone up approx. 25% in 3 years having not gone up at all beforehand then!

The 4% cap is a handy way of guaranteeing an increase without guilt. They basically told all landlords and renters that a 4% increase was to be accepted every year.

4% a year is insane.

If your rent is 1000, after 5 years it's 1216.

Why should 4% be acceptable by FG? It's digusting.

Do you believe that without RPZs, your rent would be 25% lower?

I'm not sure what you're on about when you say "it basically told all landlords a 4% was to be accepted every year". Pre RPZ, any percentange had to be accepted if that was the market rate. There was no basis for rejecting an increase. Tenants didn't lose any rights here.

rightmove

99problems1 wrote: »

It's such a coincidence that my rent has gone up approx. 25% in 3 years having not gone up at all beforehand then!

The 4% cap is a handy way of guaranteeing an increase without guilt. They basically told all landlords and renters that a 4% increase was to be accepted every year.

4% a year is insane.

If your rent is 1000, after 5 years it's 1216.

Why should 4% be acceptable by FG? It's digusting.

100%
Why didn't they just cap the rent. Oh that is unconstitutional but so it the rpz

rightmove

Awec I have been a tenant and LL simultaneously for most of last 10 years and I honestly think you dont see the effect of the policies. I knew as a tenant that my rent was going to increase because of the rpz and that I was going to have to get a grip on the sweet deal my tenants had

voluntary

What I hear around is that private landlords kick out tenants where locked into under market rates, move in themselves and rent out their other homes instead, ones with no restrictions applied. It's a way to do it if you're a LL, but a pretty bad situation if you're a tenant as you're OUT.

rightmove

voluntary wrote: »

What I hear around is that private landlords kick out tenants where locked into under market rates, move in themselves and rent out their other homes instead, ones with no restrictions applied. It's a way to do it if you're a LL, but a pretty bad situation if you're a tenant as you're OUT.

Effect of Gov policy

Graham

voluntary wrote: »

What I hear around is that private landlords kick out tenants where locked into under market rates, move in themselves and rent out their other homes instead, ones with no restrictions applied. It's a way to do it if you're a LL, but a pretty bad situation if you're a tenant as you're OUT.

I can't imagine that happens in any sort of volume to be statistically significant.

Villa05

awec wrote:

This is purely anecdotal. If you believed this forum, landlords never put their rent up. Ever.

Many small landlords were amateurs. an acceptable return for many of them was rent covering the mortgage. They viewed this as the tennant was paying for their asset. This asset would generate income for them upon retirement
the demonisation of landlords excessive taxation on these LL versus close to 0 tax for corporate landlords plus the RPZs killed the above practice

This led to a race to peak rents across the board

voluntary

Graham wrote: »

I can't imagine that happens in any sort of volume to be statistically significant.

Probably not, but good governance is not only about statistics. Good governance is about justice and people. If a new legislation help 9 in 10 but badly hurt 1/10 people then I say this is not good legislation.

Cyrus

voluntary wrote: »

Probably not, but good governance is not only about statistics. Good governance is about justice and people. If a new legislation help 9 in 10 but badly hurt 1/10 people then I say this is not good legislation.

so how do you legislate, you cant legislate in a way that is to the benefit of absolutely everyone, its not possible.

voluntary

Cyrus wrote: »

so how do you legislate, you cant legislate in a way that is to the benefit of absolutely everyone, its not possible.

No, you can't, but then what was done was absolutely discriminatory against landlords who charged below market rates and probably OK for landlords 'overcharging'.

If rent limits, as part of a temporary emergency legislation, were made to link rents to some local indexes, then there would be fewer injustice vicitims on either side. Landlords kicking out tenants to move to their property just to rent out their other home wouldn't make sense either.

Capping a 2 bed in a single estate at 1200 makes much more sense than capping 2 identical houses, one at 800 and another at 2000, just because of the rent level they charged on the D-DAY.

99problems1

awec wrote: »

Do you believe that without RPZs, your rent would be 25% lower?

I'm not sure what you're on about when you say "it basically told all landlords a 4% was to be accepted every year". Pre RPZ, any percentange had to be accepted if that was the market rate. There was no basis for rejecting an increase. Tenants didn't lose any rights here.

Absolutely! 100%.

Why didn't they put up the rent in the preceding 4 years?

beauf

awec wrote: »

...I am glad we agree that rents are going up anyway, and moved on from this notion that RPZs are to blame for rents going up...

I like the way you moved straight to strawman. Always convincing that.

They can't be the cause because the problem existed before RPZ existed.
But RPZs have compounded the existing problem.

beauf

99problems1 wrote: »

Why didn't they put up the rent in the preceding 4 years?

There used to be lots of reasons not to increase the rent.

There are none now.

Rather the opposite. The LL is penalized now if they don't.