RTB seeing the light!

The Student

https://www.thejournal.ie/residential-tenancies-board-difficult-tenants-tom-dunne-4852391-Oct2019/

Interesting reading, maybe they realize what people have been saying for a while now!

Cuddlesworth

"However, the Irish Property Owners Association agreed with Dunne’s claim, but noted that two-thirds of all tenancies are let by property owners with less than three properties.

“These are the landlords that the State needs to retain in the market. They are providing accommodation for most of the tenants renting” the group said in a statement."

They are also leaving in droves, for the same reasons.

rightmove

Probably too late. Horse has already bolted

GavMan

Eoin O'Broin doing a fine comical Ali impression there

Old diesel

I don't think its actually possible to keep these landlords happy long term

So you develop a system where Govt or someone else buys the house from the Landlord at full vacant procession market rate.

But keeps tenant in place.

The challenges of keeping landlords happy......

1) the mortgage may be based on an original purchase price that is more then current market value. Yet Landlord requires a monthly profit after paying that mortgage.

2) if the original purchase price was 350 k and current market value is 250 k - it's better to have the house bought out at 250 k and start afresh.

3) if the tax and eviction issues were resolved - does the landlord actually still have an interest in being a landlord.

4) who bails out the landlords 2006 investment to allow it make a return on that 2006 investment and it's costs to date. Tenant??????. Govt?????.

5) ALL Landlords WILL eventually leave the market - whether via a sale or the beneficiaries of a Landlords will deciding they want to sell up.

6) Knowing that all Landlords will eventually leave the market - the question is what sort of operational model and incentives we should aim for new entrants.

7) does the model of random people just entering the sector with 1 to 2 homes still work as a viable scenario in a lifetime rental situation - ie tenants never own their own home.

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

I don't think its actually possible to keep these landlords happy long term

So you develop a system where Govt or someone else buys the house from the Landlord at full vacant procession market rate.

But keeps tenant in place.

The challenges of keeping landlords happy......

1) the mortgage may be based on an original purchase price that is more then current market value. Yet Landlord requires a monthly profit after paying that mortgage.

2) if the original purchase price was 350 k and current market value is 250 k - it's better to have the house bought out at 250 k and start afresh.

3) if the tax and eviction issues were resolved - does the landlord actually still have an interest in being a landlord.

4) who bails out the landlords 2006 investment to allow it make a return on that 2006 investment and it's costs to date. Tenant??????. Govt?????.

5) ALL Landlords WILL eventually leave the market - whether via a sale or the beneficiaries of a Landlords will deciding they want to sell up.

6) Knowing that all Landlords will eventually leave the market - the question is what sort of operational model and incentives we should aim for new entrants.

7) does the model of random people just entering the sector with 1 to 2 homes still work as a viable scenario in a lifetime rental situation - ie tenants never own their own home.

Maybe treat it as a business like any other. If you don't pay for the service it is not supplied.

The tax and quicker eviction would be enough for me personally. The tax payable is crazy, and not only that you pay PRSI on your rental income and get nothing in return for it as it is classed as unearned income Revenue in its wisdom charges you PRSI but you get nothing for it.

Let economics play its part eg supply and demand. Nobody is expecting anybody to bail out the landlords where they don't want or cant continue in the business. But to expect someone to pay a mortgage when they are not receiving their rent is ridiculous.

Using your sentiment of all landlords will eventually leave the market then the same can be said for tenants who either buy a property or are housed by the State.

The model of landlords with one or two properties actually would work if the playing field was leveled a bit. Institutional landlords don't tenants an inch, small landlords actually do.

riemann

rightmove wrote: »

Probably too late. Horse has already bolted

I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

SozBbz

riemann wrote: »

I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

Plenty of people want rented accommodation for a variety of reasons. Once a house has people living in it, its being used for its proper use.

I agree with previous posters, fairer tax treatment and the ability to bring a problem tenancy to a swift resolution would be really significant for me.

Am new to the LL world, and have been a tenant earlier in life. I'm planning on being really fair to our tenants and in return I'd like them to treat the property with respect. I've no intention of impacting their rights and want them to enjoy their home, but in the nightmare scenario that they decide to trash the place and refuse to pay rent, I'd like to be able to end the tenancy without incurring months/years of lost rent and other costs.

Its all about fairness.

rightmove

riemann wrote: »

I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

ah now I didn't know the houses had to be sold to families ...that's ok so...:rolleyes:

beauf

riemann wrote: »

I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

This issue isn't about Landlords. They can sell, invest in something else. Doesn't really matter. Landlord never wanted the affordable or social housing business. They were forced into not refusing it by new laws. The Govt did that, because they didn't want it either.

Its only a negative for people wanting rentals who don't have somewhere, as it reduces supply of rental units. That's the main crisis lack of affordable places to rent, or social housing. REITs in the main don't focus on affordable or Social.

So you're basically saying you don't give a fig about affordable renting.

Baby01032012

riemann wrote: »

I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

I think you're missing the point. Yes supply is catching up with demand and house prices are levelling or even decreasing. However there still is and never will be enough supply of rental accommodation. Rental prices will still increase yet the average landlord will still leave the market despite high rental values. There is no incentive for small landlords to stay in the market. And the market sure does need them...to service the social tenants as much as the private tenants.

beauf

It's a none issue. The govt have full control over this. If they want to fix it they can. Instead they are blathering on about landlords who have nothing to do with it.

riclad

I think we still need more 1 bed rental units built in dublin
to provide rental units for people on lower incomes or students
that are not well off .
i think house prices are falling slightly because people are worried about brexit , as well as increasing supply .
Most of the new buildings being built for students are aimed at students
who can afford to pay high rents for top class accomodation .
Theres plenty of landlords out there who cannot afford to sell up, their are still in negative equity .
They are renting to a tenant , paying high tax,s and making a very small profit .

the_syco

riemann wrote: »

I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

No landlords in rural areas will kill off small rural towns, as REITs will only exist in the larger towns, and people don't have the money to buy the moment they leave college.

rightmove

Actions rather than belated words from the rtb would have made a difference but their own figures have showed the exit from the market by small LL who have been badly treated by the Gov and I hope they remember it at election time

riclad

We need more landlords, not less .Many single people working in urban area,s cannot afford to buy a house .They need a flat or a room to rent, a good rental market with units for people on lower or average incomes is an essential part of any economy .
if There were more 1 bed house,s or apartments on the market it would enable more older people living alone to sell up their house,s and
provide more supply for familys who want to buy a house .

the-island-man

I am a Landlord and for two and a half years I was non-resident. During that time I only paid 20% tax on my rental income as per the double taxation treaty which was in place. I find it ridiculous that I get taxed more while resident in the country and contributing to the day to day running of the country.

For the two and a half years I was in Switzerland. When you lease a property there they look for the following:
- Credit Check
- Application form
- Passports & Work Permits
- 3 months rent as a deposit (Which for me was 5,250 CHF - 4,777 Euro)
- First months rent
- Letter of motivation outlining why I want to live in the area

Most leases specify that you need to give 3 months notice to terminate the lease and you cannot end your occupancy in the month of December and you cannot move out or into an apartment on a Sunday because it's the day of rest.

On top of this the letting agency requires you to present the apartment back in the condition in which you found it which leads to most people hiring professional cleaners when they leave an apartment. The professional cleaners give you a gurantee that the apartment will be cleaned to the standards the letting agency expects. but the cleaners usually cost upwards of 1000 CHF. You also have to pay for anything you broke or if the apartment needs to be repainted.

In return for all this cost the tenant gets a lot of security and it is almost impossible to turf them out unless you can prove you are doing major renovations.

Both sides of the coin are bad here in that there is no responsibility for either tenant or landlord. It is funny however that the tenant can thrash a place, walk way with maybe only the months deposit being confiscated and they still think Landlords are scum. Of course some Landlords are scum but it's definitely not a panacea.

rightmove

the-island-man wrote: »

I

Both sides of the coin are bad here in that there is no responsibility for either tenant or landlord. I...ea.

Rtb has nailed the LL but tenant can do what they want

riclad

If a tenant wants to stay on in a property ,it may take a year or more to go to court and evict them .
They can leave the property and wreck it ,
it will be very hard or maybe a waste of time to get any compensation for the damage .
The law is biased in favour of the tenant .
So its important to ask for id and various documents before you decide to
take on a tenant .
One of the documents should be proof of employment,
i work for company x, info on income ,eg a payslip.
If in doubt ,move on to another potential tenant .

rightmove

But has rtb seen the light even if too late. And what can they do about it,?

beauf

rightmove wrote: »

But has rtb seen the light even if too late. And what can they do about it,?

Nothing. They are constrained by the legal framework they exist in.

murphaph

beauf wrote: »

Nothing. They are constrained by the legal framework they exist in.

They could prioritise hearings for unpaid rent etc.

beauf

murphaph wrote: »

They could prioritise hearings for unpaid rent etc.

How much time would that save Vs the time between notice to actually getting the property back.

Would that time saved keep people in the business that would otherwise leave. I don't think so.

disposableFish

Old diesel wrote: »

4) who bails out the landlords 2006 investment to allow it make a return on that 2006 investment and it's costs to date. Tenant??????. Govt?????.

I don't really get that point. Why does the landlord have a right to make a return.
It's an investment, they took a risk/miscalculated the risk and it didn't pay off.

I agree with many of the concerns of landlords (in particular, how much the legal system is failing them/everyone else with how slow it is), but your point here really is their own fault (though I do believe that banks should share some responsibility for making loans that - them being experts - they should have known were bad and had a responsibility not to give).

disposableFish

riclad wrote: »

The law is biased in favour of the tenant .

I disagree, I would say its general inadequacy favours anyone who's willing to flout the law, be they landlord or tenant.

rightmove

beauf wrote: »

Nothing. They are constrained by the legal framework they exist in.

Maybe taking a case on behalf of the LL or making proposals to gov to streamline evictions?...or pursuing non paying tenants etc etc

rightmove

disposableFish wrote: »

I disagree, I would say its general inadequacy favours anyone who's willing to flout the law, be they landlord or tenant.

LL because they actually have skin in the game is always going to be coming off worse

disposableFish

rightmove wrote: »

LL because they actually have skin in the game is always going to be coming off worse

Everyone needs somewhere to live - that's a pretty big deal for a tenant.

Looks like you're making a general statement based on one scenario - where a tenant flouts the law and the situation (I'm agreeing with you here) favours the tenant. (It's not really the law that favours them here IMO, it's how damn long it takes to get it done).

But that's just one aspect. On the other hand you have a large number of illegal evictions, substandard/dangerous accommodation, landlords refusing leases/demanding cash payments etc.

So like I said, I don't think it favours one "side", it favours "cute huars" who are willing to screw over someone else for their own gain. If regulations were a bit stricter and actually enforced then all (honest) landlords and tenants would be happier.

corks finest

Attended as a witness for Cluid housing association lately in Cork,said tenant appealing an eviction order ( 2 nd time) adjudicator was a local barrister, tenant was obstructive, intimidating, rough as Fu*k, unruly causing serious hassle with several neighbours ( including me) since 2009 ,other witness was a co council tenant ( nearby ) who co incidentally had court proceedings against the same animal the next day for stalking/ putting a knife up to her throat etc etc,
I put it to the 2 Cluid housing officers that we wouldn't be in such a situation if they were more bloody careful in who they left into their houses,all I got was yes, sorry,won't happen again etc
This individual is an alcoholic,on serious medication, doesent give a fu*k who hears what ,near constant noise,yet all of a sudden since the hearing ( he's waiting for the outcome) not a word from the bollox,no noise,no nothing
P.s. a near neighbour ,also Cluid is getting evicted early November,selling heroin,parties , prostituting etc,
My point really is social housing need to get serious ref who they allocate houses to.
Lots of deserving ppl with kids on waiting lists for years,yet they hand out houses to scroungers, trouble makers,druggies,,,,
Anyone doubt my words regards hassle where I live in Carrigaline,can p.m. me for details,I will respond and include a number

the_syco

disposableFish wrote: »

I don't really get that point. Why does the landlord have a right to make a return.
It's an investment, they took a risk/miscalculated the risk and it didn't pay off.

If it were a business, the non-payer of rent would be evicted a lot quicker!

riclad

The law at present discourages investors and potential landlords as it favour,s the tenant .
In case,s where a tenant stays in a house and refuse,s to pay any rent .

beauf

disposableFish wrote: »

I disagree, I would say its general inadequacy favours anyone who's willing to flout the law, be they landlord or tenant.

It's about risk. If either sides flout the law how severe are the penalties and repercussions. Are they equally severe. What are the risks.

disposableFish

disposableFish wrote: »

I don't really get that point. Why does the landlord have a right to make a return.
It's an investment, they took a risk/miscalculated the risk and it didn't pay off.

You are entitled to be remunerated if you provide a service.

You are quite right in the sense that a landlord has no right to make a profit on either the service nor the capital investment, but if there is a tenancy agreement, the landlord most assuredly has a right to be paid for the property.

It is obvious that LLs are calculating risk far more now than before, either by leaving the market in large numbers, or by being far more selective on who they rent to and by asking for much bigger deposits. This is detrimental to the rental market and means many good tenants cannot get accommodation.

disposableFish

Dav010 wrote: »

You are entitled to be remunerated if you provide a service.

You are quite right in the sense that a landlord has no right to make a profit on either the service nor the capital investment, but if there is a tenancy agreement, the landlord most assuredly has a right to be paid for the property.

It is obvious that LLs are calculating risk far more now than before, either by leaving the market in large numbers, or by being far more selective on who they rent to and by asking for much bigger deposits. This is detrimental to the rental market and means many good tenants cannot get accommodation.

I was talking purely about the capital gain on property value, which was what the poster I was quoting was talking about in the quote (unless I'm wrong). That any investment is a risk you take, but Old Diesel seemed to be suggesting that LLs be compensated for not making the kind of profit they had hoped to make on what turned out to be a bad investment.

On what you were saying, certainly everyone has the right to be paid the agreed amount for a service provided.

The points I've been making generally are that everyone would benefit from tighter rules and a much quicker legal system - from a LLs point of view risk would be greatly reduced if you could be sure of getting non-paying tenants out within a short amount of time.

sk8board

Hi, just to say firstly I’m a full time residential LL.

The incidental LLs are in the perfect position to sell at the moment:
1. By their nature they never wanted to be LLs in the first place
2. Rent controls means their yield is managed by an external entity
3. As an investment, having 100% of your income coming from one tenancy carries incredible risk. Any issues and it’s 0 income with all the same costs.
4. Property prices appear to be peaking, so it’s a good time to sell


Finally, just to clarify this point - “the Irish Property Owners Association noted that two-thirds of all tenancies are let by property owners with less than three properties.”

This is incorrect - two thirds of all LLs only have ONE rental property (120k from 169k according to the RTB).
Only 8% of LLs have 3 or more properties.

Personally I consider myself one of the ‘good’ LLs, but ideally I’d like to be able to establish a company to run it as a business, professionalise the market and be beholden to the rules

handlemaster

riemann wrote: »

I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

This post just shows your lack of understanding of how a proper property market should work. There should always be a mix of property owners in the market

A short report about this now on morning Ireland.

Mentions there's 50,000 less landlords since 2012, and the difficulties of evicting bad tenants and an interview with a LL who's tenant filled the house with trash.

Threshold boss on to say it's a landlords market.

Topgear on Dave

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

A short report about this now on morning Ireland.

Mentions there's 50,000 less landlords since 2012, and the difficulties of evicting bad tenants and an interview with a LL who's tenant filled the house with trash.

Threshold boss on to say it's a landlords market.

It’s a “Landlrds market”, rent is at an all time high, yet there are 50k less LLs than 7 years ago, I doubt you need a masters in Economics to see that situation is not normal. Did the threshold guy acknowledge the difficulties associated with evicting errant tenants?

The Student

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

A short report about this now on morning Ireland.

Mentions there's 50,000 less landlords since 2012, and the difficulties of evicting bad tenants and an interview with a LL who's tenant filled the house with trash.

Threshold boss on to say it's a landlords market.

is this on today or when was it on? I would like to listen to it.

beauf

Berlin is going to have a 5yr rent freeze. Expect similar here shortly.

beauf

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s a “Landlrds market”, rent is at an all time high, yet there are 50k less LLs than 7 years ago, I doubt you need a masters in Economics to see that situation is not normal. Did the threshold guy acknowledge the difficulties associated with evicting errant tenants?

Those figures are not useful on their own. They should be also be looking at the number of new landlords and more importantly the amount of rental stock the number of units. Finally the number of people renting and looking for places.

Because we might have a net loss 30k of units but 300k more people looking for them.

Also are the units leaving the market much lower rent than the new ones entering the market.

Colking

The Student wrote: »

is this on today or when was it on? I would like to listen to it.

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21642017

Wanderer78

Topgear on Dave wrote:

Threshold boss on to say it's a landlords market.

Its slowly becoming a no ones market

Colking

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

A short report about this now on morning Ireland.

Mentions there's 50,000 less landlords since 2012, and the difficulties of evicting bad tenants and an interview with a LL who's tenant filled the house with trash.

Threshold boss on to say it's a landlords market.

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s a “Landlrds market”, rent is at an all time high, yet there are 50k less LLs than 7 years ago, I doubt you need a masters in Economics to see that situation is not normal. Did the threshold guy acknowledge the difficulties associated with evicting errant tenants?

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Its slowly becoming a no ones market

All the power and knowledge reside with the Landlords according to the Threshold CEO.

The Landlord in question says he's most likely getting out.

He doesn't need the hassle at his age and he doesn't need to be constantly vilified for not providing a solution to a problem created by successive governments.

Wanderer78

Colking wrote:

He doesn't need the hassle at his age and he does need to be constantly vilified for not providing a solution to a problem created by successive governments.

Its an absolute mess, I wouldn't blame landlords for running, it certainly doesn't sound like money easily earned

Colking

Colking wrote: »

He doesn't need the hassle at his age and he doesn't need to be constantly vilified for not providing a solution to a problem created by successive governments.

Even the RTE report called the landlord "Tom" but it was not his real name.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

Did the threshold guy acknowledge the difficulties associated with evicting errant tenants?

Your having a laugh? right?

Colking

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Its an absolute mess, I wouldn't blame landlords for running, it certainly doesn't sound like money easily earned

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Its slowly becoming a no ones market

The system is a mess. In fairness the vast majority of tenants are 100%. The majority of Landlords are 100%.

There is a fear factor now though. A fear factor largely generated by successive failed governmental policies and interference.

As a Tenant there is a fear of :

Is my home secure ? Will the Landlord make up some BS about a family member needing the place or that it needs renovating?

Is my home secure? Will the Landlord sell up because the property has reached a value to sell or because they are sick of being a Landlord?

If I have to move will I be able to find a new place ? Will I get my deposit back?

If I have a problem with the house/apartment I just moved into do I tell the Landlord ? Do I rock the boat or put up with an essential item broken or not being addressed?

Will the Landlord of the place I've just moved into try and be a "£$ and try something illegal and force my hand ? Will they hire an estate agent to manage the property for them and will they try some nonsense forcing my hand ?

It's all well and good telling me to report them to the RTB but I will be homeless and it's hard to find a place to rent now.

Do I have to go to the RTB for something ? Have I missed some new piece of legislation ? The RTB are totally anti-tenant aren't they ? Will I get hammered for forgetting something or making an honest mistake ?

As a Landlord there is a fear of :

Is my house/apartment secure ? Will the tenant thrash it or stop paying ?

Is my house/apartment secure ? Will it take me 2 years or more to get rid of the bad tenant ? How much money will I be down ? 20k ? 30k? 40k? I know I will never see a penny of that money again. Will the banks suspend the mortgage while I try and recover? Will it put my own families well being (mentally and financially) at risk ?

Is my house/apartment secure ? Will the government come out with another useless piece of legislation that makes the market tougher for both Landlords and tenants just so they can pretend to the press and the public that they are actually addressing the problems rather than avoiding their responsibilities yet again ?

Do I have to go to the RTB for something ? Have I missed some new piece of legislation ? The RTB are totally anti-landlord aren't they ? Will I get hammered for forgetting something or making an honest mistake ?

Will the arse fall out of the market again ? Remember back in 2008 - 2012 when rental income was a joke and didn't come any where near paying for the mortgage ? The time when no-one cared that a vast number of people were severely under the hammer trying to keep mortgages paid on rental properties they would have happily got shot of ?

When will the press and the public cop on ? Landlords aren't driving around in top hats on carriages, kicking serfs in the face as they pass by guzzling champagne and firing six shooters into the air ?

When will the press and the public cop on ? Landlords, the majority of them can be spoken to and reasoned with if you are a good tenant of good standing. If you have a difficulty we can come to an arrangement most likely.

When will the press and the public cop on ? REIT's pay no tax in comparative terms and are held up as a beacon of light ?

Wanderer78

Colking wrote: »

There is a fear factor now though. A fear factor largely generated by successive failed governmental policies and interference...

...and you d have to ask, whos all this actually working for?

Colking

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and you d have to ask, whos all this actually working for?

Successive Ministers for housing would have us believe that it's working for everyone.

They would have us believe that if it's not working for everyone then it's the evil Landlords who are at fault.

(Not the vulture fund REIT Landlords though) but the evil one property owning Landlords that exist silently among us, breathing the same air as us, sending their children to the same schools as us. Shopping and supporting local businesses the same as us.

They would have us believe that contrary to what anyone might think, they as Housing Ministers are indeed capable of polishing a turd.

beauf

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and you d have to ask, whos all this actually working for?

They don't care who it is or isn't working for. That's the basic core of this issue.