RTB seeing the light!

terrydel

garhjw wrote: »

Do you have any evidence of that?

Evidence of what? That landlords are leaving for amongst other reasons the peak in price of their asset? Its common sense that plenty arevleaving for that reason, same as plenty are leaving because they are sick of it, not making enough from it etc. Are you saying this is not a factor?

The_Conductor

terrydel wrote: »

Evidence of what? That landlords are leaving for amongst other reasons the peak in price of their asset? Its common sense that plenty agree leaving for they reason, same as plenty are leaving because they are sick of it, not making enough from it etc. Are you saying this is not a factor?

According to the RTB- there is an overall reduction of 54,000 in the number of landlords in the country over the last 4 years. The bulk of this decline happened 2-3 years ago (according to the RTB's annual report) and not in 2018. While some landlords were undoubtedly locking in the increases in property prices (which have not caught up with previous peaks, despite suggestions to the contrary)- the bulk of the landlords who ran to the door did so while prices were still increasing by 4-6% per annum- and before the current falls that are being recorded in the greater Dublin area.

Keep in mind the RTB report published in July- is only up to December 2018- and does not capture the peak and subsequent falls in Dublin property prices in 2019 (and ongoing).

The regulatory environment and the manner in which landlords have been scapegoated for the government's shortcomings- have not enamored landlords to enter the sector- and have actively been a factor in landlords leaving the sector.

The provision of social housing to those who are incapable of housing themselves (for whatever reason- and there are many, many of which are through absolutely no fault of their own)- should never have been offloaded on the private sector.

Keep in mind- throughout the worsening of the homeless crisis- local authorities in Ireland have sold 4,512 private residences since January 2014 (according to a PQ answered by the Minister in the Dáil recently). Local authorities are continuing to sell properties. That single factor is the height of absolute madness- and the number of properties sold in the last 5 years is more that sufficient to cater for the entirety of the current homeless crisis. Instead- the government have insisted on outsourcing the homeless issue to the private sector.

The sole factor, the sale of pre-existing local authority housing stock- would have been sufficient to cater for the current official homeless numbers. Why are inconvenient truths like this not trumpeted in a similar manner to all the more convenient scapegoats?

overkill602

The light can never be seen if someone no matter how bad they are, there is nowhere to put them.
The same with criminals with 100+ convictions on bail, or manslaughter suspended sentences.
Successive guberments have never made any provision for extra social ,mental or criminal accommodation.
Just as default mortgage holders, non-rent paying are subject to similar leniency.
Large LL have adapted and scrutinize more to avoid the risk smaller ones hung out to dry
RTB will still have to avoid delay evictions similar to the banks on there not repossessing
Problem is many LLs can’t afford the risk could end up being a state dependent themselves.
People have to live even those who cannot unassisted should be helped more, those who won’t should worked on.

rightmove

The extension of the rpz in time and geography will result in another 10or 20k LL leaving and tenants will pay in the end along with the LL. Well done Simon and eoghan , take a bow. Doubt these 2 ever rented in their lives

Moomoomacshoe

Fol20 wrote: »

Why exactly do you think people become landlords?
It’s not for the fun of it. It’s to make money.

Would you go to work and not get paid? I think not and why do you expect ll to accept to make a loss like your friends.

In your job are you ok to not get a pay rise every year/5years? Would you not expect the same as a ll?

It’s a business and you should stop expecting a private enterprise to do it for social reasons rather than purely financial.

There you go..my point is im sick of the poor LL mouth. Of course it is a business..noone expects anyone to make zero profit..i assure you most are just getting greedier and the greed has consumed them.

It's a business therefore LL should abide by the rules; you cant just throw people out to illegally hike up rents. Or expect tenants to sit quietly dont rock the boat, the amount of stuff they get away with beggars belief. Why should we feel sorry for LL ...if its a business then follow the rules, simple.

I have zero sympathy sorry I've seen so much as I've said.

beauf

It reminds me someone at work who never listens, ignores all advice. Then when their project is a huge disaster will claim no one warned them.

Best to walk away and leave them to it.

Fol20

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

There you go..my point is im sick of the poor LL mouth. Of course it is a business..noone expects anyone to make zero profit..i assure you most are just getting greedier and the greed has consumed them.

It's a business therefore LL should abide by the rules; you cant just throw people out to illegally hike up rents. Or expect tenants to sit quietly dont rock the boat, the amount of stuff they get away with beggars belief. Why should we feel sorry for LL ...if its a business then follow the rules, simple.

I have zero sympathy sorry I've seen so much as I've said.

Yes they should abide by the rules but the goal posts are being changed so often, it can be hard to keep up.

Rules will always have grey areas and ll will use these to their advantage if required. Eg renovating property to increase rent and evict a perfectly good tenant instead of simply increasing rent. They can always bring in more laws but there will always be a gap that can be used. It should be free market rather than the rpz as this only hurts good ll and tenants alike.

Again. Why do you call it greed if you accept it’s a business. The objective of running a business is to maximise profits. If a ll increases rent he is fulfilling his objectives of a business.Again I will relate it to a normal day job. If you ask for a pay rise or move to another company for better money, is this also greed?

The same can also be said for bad tenants. There are both good and bad tenants and ll.

Dav010

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

There you go..my point is im sick of the poor LL mouth. Of course it is a business..noone expects anyone to make zero profit..i assure you most are just getting greedier and the greed has consumed them.

It's a business therefore LL should abide by the rules; you cant just throw people out to illegally hike up rents. Or expect tenants to sit quietly dont rock the boat, the amount of stuff they get away with beggars belief. Why should we feel sorry for LL ...if its a business then follow the rules, simple.

I have zero sympathy sorry I've seen so much as I've said.

If it’s a business, it should work like any other business, if the service is not paid for or abused, the service should be withdrawn. But we all know it is not like any other business.

You are absolutely correct when you say LL are in it for profit, or in the case of those in negative equity, to survive until they loss reduces, why on God’s earth would they be in it to make a loss or just break even? That would be nonsensical, do you work for free or make investments to make a loss? If your bank said that had an investment opportunity that would make you a loss every year, would you invest?

I’m not a poor landlord, but I am a wary one, and even though rents have increased since I bought during the recession, I am selling up as tenants move out. I am literally sitting at my desk reading through a sale contract for a rental property. Who needs the hassle?

Dav010

Varik wrote: »

Difference is it won't be challenged here, the rpz is arguably already unconstitutional even the government's read that it was limited in scope and time frame is out the window now.

but unless one of the big REIT want to challenge it later no one else will be able too.

Why would you need to challenge it, when you can just ignore it. A couple of months ago on the late night Matt Cooper show they said rents had increased 14% in Dublin in one year, after the RPZ came in. A couple of weeks ago there was an article in The Cork Examiner saying there had not been one application for planning since new legislation about short lets was introduced, that is zero applications in the.city of Cork.

If a rent freeze is introduced, it would be ignored too. Bad legislation leads to bad compliance. Unfortunately our housing minister is too inept to understand that making the rental market less appealing for Landlords just makes a bad situation much worse. To increase stock, you have to entice investors, no investors, no housing stock, the Government aren’t going to build them.

rightmove

I love all this talk of it being a business. Most accidental LL were way off market rate precisely because they didn't want the grief of looking at it like a business. If the tenants were not causing hassle the rent remained low. The 4% crap changed that and the cultural shift towards litigious tenancies caused by the introduction and extension of the powers of the rtb changed all that. 50k LL gone. Trust me I only know one accidental LL that ever used the word business when referring to renting out his property.

Cuddlesworth

The_Conductor wrote: »

Keep in mind- throughout the worsening of the homeless crisis- local authorities in Ireland have sold 4,512 private residences since January 2014 (according to a PQ answered by the Minister in the D recently). Local authorities are continuing to sell properties. That single factor is the height of absolute madness- and the number of properties sold in the last 5 years is more that sufficient to cater for the entirety of the current homeless crisis. Instead- the government have insisted on outsourcing the homeless issue to the private sector.

The sole factor, the sale of pre-existing local authority housing stock- would have been sufficient to cater for the current official homeless numbers. Why are inconvenient truths like this not trumpeted in a similar manner to all the more convenient scapegoats?

As long as you have lifetime social housing, it makes little difference if they sell or not sell. You have 4.5k houses in which the tenants were clearly happy with living there and had no intention of moving on. To me, its simply a small cash boost for assets whose value could never be realized and the overall ongoing reliance on council funds reduced by 4.5k households.

godtabh

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

There you go..my point is im sick of the poor LL mouth. Of course it is a business..noone expects anyone to make zero profit..i assure you most are just getting greedier and the greed has consumed them.

It's a business therefore LL should abide by the rules; you cant just throw people out to illegally hike up rents. Or expect tenants to sit quietly dont rock the boat, the amount of stuff they get away with beggars belief. Why should we feel sorry for LL ...if its a business then follow the rules, simple.

I have zero sympathy sorry I've seen so much as I've said.

Being a landlord is not treated as business in the eye of the government. If it was it maybe more attractive to be a LL. but it isn’t.

Varik

Dav010 wrote: »

Why would you need to challenge it, when you can just ignore it. A couple of months ago on the late night Matt Cooper show they said rents had increased 14% in Dublin in one year, after the RPZ came in. A couple of weeks ago there was an article in The Cork Examiner saying there had not been one application for planning since new legislation about short lets was introduced, that is zero applications in the.city of Cork.

If a rent freeze is introduced, it would be ignored too. Bad legislation leads to bad compliance. Unfortunately our housing minister is too inept to understand that making the rental market less appealing for Landlords just makes a bad situation much worse. To increase stock, you have to entice investors, no investors, no housing stock, the Government aren’t going to build them.

There's a difference between the average rent going up above the 4% and what a particular rent can up up by per year.

The average rent it going up above the 4% because new rental properties can set whatever initial rent they like thereby Increasing the average, and large amount of rentals stuck at lower rates are being sold again raising the average.

The_Conductor

Varik wrote: »

There's a difference between the average rent going up above the 4% and what a particular rent can up up by per year.

The average rent it going up above the 4% because new rental properties can set whatever initial rent they like thereby Increasing the average, and large amount of rentals stuck at lower rates are being sold again raising the average.

Selling a property- if it is relet- does not extinguish its previous rent level. The rent level is associated with the property- not with ownership of the property. Of course- removing lower rent units from the market altogether- as in- selling units to prospective owner occupiers- will increase the average.

Moomoomacshoe

Dav010 wrote: »

If it’s a business, it should work like any other business, if the service is not paid for or abused, the service should be withdrawn. But we all know it is not like any other business.

You are absolutely correct when you say LL are in it for profit, or in the case of those in negative equity, to survive until they loss reduces, why on God’s earth would they be in it to make a loss or just break even? That would be nonsensical, do you work for free or make investments to make a loss? If your bank said that had an investment opportunity that would make you a loss every year, would you invest?

I’m not a poor landlord, but I am a wary one, and even though rents have increased since I bought during the recession, I am selling up as tenants move out. I am literally sitting at my desk reading through a sale contract for a rental property. Who needs the hassle?

The problem is the LL treating it like a business when it suits them but not allowing tenants to treat like a business transaction. As a tenant if you are to be business like..say x y z is wrong, needs to be fixed, documentation etc you are treated as an annoying tenant not worth having. It's a power struggle.

And no to other poster..I would not expect any business to be illegally making profits. Is tax evasion ok.. k mean im entitled to my salary increase?? Comparing to a salary increase is a joke..illegally evicting tenants in order to hike up the rent almost double is not acceptable business practice and is indeed breaking all legislation. Let me tell you this is happening all over Ireland right now.

Varik

The_Conductor wrote: »

Selling a property- if it is relet- does not extinguish its previous rent level. The rent level is associated with the property- not with ownership of the property. Of course- removing lower rent units from the market altogether- as in- selling units to prospective owner occupiers- will increase the average.

Never suggested it did. Majority of properties arnt re-let, thereby increasing average.

Dav010

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

The problem is the LL treating it like a business when it suits them but not allowing tenants to treat like a business transaction. As a tenant if you are to be business like..say x y z is wrong, needs to be fixed, documentation etc you are treated as an annoying tenant not worth having. It's a power struggle.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

So many posters have come on here saying renting should be treated like a business and if LLs not not prepared to, or able to take the loses as well as the gains, then they should not be in it.

As another poster said, small landlords do not consider it a business, simply because you cannot operate it like a typical business. A property owner in a RPZ is not free to provide a service in an open market, nor can they exercise their right to withdraw a service when it is not being paid for or abused, like they would be allowed to do in most other businesses.

A tenant stops being worth having when they not abide by their rental agreement, the main gripe LLs is not being able to remove an errant tenant. I do agree that the LL should provide a property which satisfies the regulations, and I have no issue with those that don’t being penalised. But when a tenant can stop paying rent, confident in the knowledge that it could take a year or more to remove them and the owner has virtually no chance of recovering lost money, I will not concede that fault lies with greedy landlords.

Again, even a rudimentary understanding of how markets work should be enough for anyone to see that LLs leaving a market where rents are at record highs is symptomatic of something being very wrong.

Fol20

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

The problem is the LL treating it like a business when it suits them but not allowing tenants to treat like a business transaction. As a tenant if you are to be business like..say x y z is wrong, needs to be fixed, documentation etc you are treated as an annoying tenant not worth having. It's a power struggle.

And no to other poster..I would not expect any business to be illegally making profits. Is tax evasion ok.. k mean im entitled to my salary increase?? Comparing to a salary increase is a joke..illegally evicting tenants in order to hike up the rent almost double is not acceptable business practice and is indeed breaking all legislation. Let me tell you this is happening all over Ireland right now.

Like any service industry, you have good and bad buyers(tenants in this case). If you buy food in a restaurant but you have a load of complaints and unique requests, I think the chef is meant to oblige to a degree but is also not happy. Housing is similar. Some tenants expect you to go above and beyond in certain items when it isn’t required.

Where did anyone say tax evasion? Yes there are some that do it but the vast majority do not. In this day and age, you would be a fool to try tax evasion. Your generalising this without backing this up with hard facts.

Please elaborate as to why comparing a rental to your paye salary a joke. Both have the same objective - to make as much money as possible.

There are also ways to increase above the 4pc rule but you view this as greed or should not be possible even though you agree it’s a business. It seems like it’s a loose loose for ll from your point of view as everything they do is wrong.

Samuel T. Cogley

I notice Berlin being mentioned. Note anything built in the last five years is exempt and new builds are exempt. REITs got their claws in there too I see.

beauf

Sweet for them.

The_Conductor

The core tenet of a tax system is that is has to be seen to be fair and equitable.
It is not fair or equitable- where one category of landlord, in this case, receives preferential treatment to other landlords.
I don't know why Irish taxpayers put up with this gross inequity- or why Germans do- by rights both sets of respective taxpayers, should make their displeasure felt and communicate loudly to their elected representatives, that this is no acceptable.