Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

Smouse156

beauf wrote: »

I see so you reckon can fit out a house to pass the HAP inspection for free, including labour to move it.

In that case you should start a business to provide such a service for a small fee, it should be very profitable for you. Why not rent out furniture and fittings, for rentals, and HAPs. You be doing tenants a favour. For what a small % of the deposit. Since the deposit covers damage to the house also. Furniture and fittings being worthless only needs a tiny deposit.


I bet you won't though...

🀔...might be an idea

However, yes I know the deposit is also for the house itself which clearly isn’t worthless. But you’d have to agree that rental “furniture” is generally close to worthless

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

Its not the private markets remit to create policy or provide social, or even affordable housing.

It is the Govts Job. But they decided not to basically ignore it for the past 20~30 yrs.

I don't like that it's been outsourced to the private market either. But the fact remains that it has, and this is the environment the private market has to operate in.

If you want different policies, vote in a different government.

Smouse156

beauf wrote: »

I've no idea what or who Paul Howard is.

HAPs get more inspections and have standards.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/repairs_maintenance_and_minimum_physical_standards.html[/url

That just how they were encourage to invest. Nothing about standards.

What % of REITs are at the cheaper end of the market or HAP.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0809/983942-housing-social-tenancies/

My sole point was that they have brought in a higher standard of accommodation and tenants don’t feel like they are living in Ghetto accommodation. They obviously don’t have to maintain their units to a high standard, they do it to attract decent tenants and high rents.

I’m definitely not pro-reit or anything. It’s just a shame John & Mary took the piss for years with their ghetto standards.

I would guess they have hardly any HAP tenants

The_Conductor

Smouse156 wrote: »

My sole point was that they have brought in a higher standard of accommodation and tenants don’t feel like they are living in Ghetto accommodation. They obviously don’t have to maintain their units to a high standard, they do it to attract decent tenants and high rents.

I’m definitely not pro-reit or anything. It’s just a shame John & Mary took the piss for years with their ghetto standards.

I would guess they have hardly any HAP tenants

There are currently 49,961 HAP tenancies in Ireland (to 31st August 2020).
According to the RTB (and I'm not clear how they're gathering this particular statistic) just less than 7% of HAP tenancies are in multi unit developments registered to a single landlord- the largest private landlord in the country (IRES REIT) comprising 392 such tenancies (just over 11% of their residential tenancies). Private landlords of 3 or fewer units comprise 40,879 HAP tenancies.

So- its actually not true that John and Mary have hardly any HAP tenants- John and Mary comprise roughly 80% of the HAP market.

beauf

Smouse156 wrote: »

My sole point was that they have brought in a higher standard of accommodation and tenants don’t feel like they are living in Ghetto accommodation. They obviously don’t have to maintain their units to a high standard, they do it to attract decent tenants and high rents.

I’m definitely not pro-reit or anything. It’s just a shame John & Mary took the piss for years with their ghetto standards.

I would guess they have hardly any HAP tenants

....they do it to attract high rents.....

If you want decent standards you have to pay for it..

beauf

Smouse156 wrote: »

��...might be an idea

However, yes I know the deposit is also for the house itself which clearly isn’t worthless. But you’d have to agree that rental “furniture” is generally close to worthless

Depends where you are renting. I'm sure if you rented out a million euro apartment the furniture wouldn't be worthless.

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't like that it's been outsourced to the private market either. But the fact remains that it has, and this is the environment the private market has to operate in.

If you want different policies, vote in a different government.

The market reflects that policy. The whole housing crisis reflects Govt policy over many years and decades.

So its not the market creating the issue. Its the Govt.

beauf

So if rentals are sitting empty and rents aren't falling through the floor. That also a reflection of Govt Policy.

lcwill

brisan wrote: »

If a landlord is prepared to forfeit 18k gross over a year in the hope that things will go back to normal that's his choice.
I do not see a flood of rental properties hitting the sales market.
Surely now while demand is high and prices rising is the time to sell if they cant turn a profit renting
The upside was a 4% yearly increase in rent with minimal inflation and low interest rates

If I had a property rented out for 1400 and the tenants left, but I could rent again it for 1100, I would be down 3,600 a year in rent but potentially 45,000 in the value of the property if I tried to sell it and the purchaser was going to be stuck at the same rent level - as they would be under current legislation (1400 a month at 8% yield gives a value of 210,000, 1,100 a month at 8% yield gives a value of 165,000).

beauf

At the end of the day all that matters can you get a rental at a decent price. If you can then happy days. If not then perhaps the market isn't that simple.

We'll only really know the impact of all this in another 6 months or so.

cgcsb

Graham wrote: »

I think that's only a small part of it.

introduce a new source of capital to the property market
reduce dependence on banks
encourage a longer term view
stability of tenure for tenants
better quality buildings
reduce dependency on private landlords

but the end product was unaffordable on the average wage and due to the wealth of the owner, high prices can be demanded for a long time with a low occupancy rate. Perhaps this could be solvable if their tax free status was made dependent on having a minimum of 75% occupancy at all times.

Graham

cgcsb wrote: »

but the end product was unaffordable on the average wage and due to the wealth of the owner, high prices can be demanded for a long time with a low occupancy rate. Perhaps this could be solvable if their tax free status was made dependent on having a minimum of 75% occupancy at all times.

While there's absolutely no denying they're aiming at the upper end of the market I don't think there are many units being left unoccupied and they've undeniably reduced pressure to a certain extent with the additional capacity, all be it at the higher end of the market.

I suppose it was to be expected they'd go for the top of the market first. As that sector of the market gets saturated, I'd expect the focus to step down to target lower average rents per unit.

bluelamp

brisan wrote: »

In an alternative reality perhaps but not in this one
Nigh on impossible to convert offices and shops to habitable accommodation so I have no idea where thats coming from

And that's another problem in itself.

Brooklyn is a great example of what can be achieved by converting warehouses, factories, offices etc into loft style apartments.

20 years ago you wouldn't set foot there. Then the apartments came along, filled the place with young people looking for cheap accomodation - and the bars, restaurants and shops etc followed.

Stupidly stringent building regulations are actually having a detrimental effect on the rental market now - it has effectively removed the lower end of the market.

bluelamp

bluelamp wrote: »

Stupidly stringent building regulations are actually having a detrimental effect on the rental market now - it has effectively removed the lower end of the market.

I always find the "poor people don't know what's good for them, what with all these "standards. Nothing wrong with mouldy tenements. Notions, the lot of them" line of defence is the best defence against regulations personally.

Hubertj

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I always find the "poor people don't know what's good for them, what with all these "standards. Nothing wrong with mouldy tenements. Notions, the lot of them" line of defence is the best defence against regulations personally.

I don’t believe that is what the poster means. In other countries commercial building have been successfully converted to quality accommodation. It seems that regulations in Ireland are not supportive of this. From reading other threads the building regs are more stringent than other countries and add significant costs to building and this feeds into the affordability issues.

JimmyVik

eleventh wrote: »

The legislation should be changed so that LLs in RPZs could decrease rent without being subject to 4% cap on increase in a few years if market changes (but 4% cap continues where there's no decrease).

The major problem is all this changing of legislation at the drop of a hat.
Sure they might change it to that legislation, but on current form will change the legislation again to make sure you can rise the rent after dropping it.
No investor trusts the government not to fcuk them over now. Thats the problem.

brisan

lcwill wrote: »

If I had a property rented out for 1400 and the tenants left, but I could rent again it for 1100, I would be down 3,600 a year in rent but potentially 45,000 in the value of the property if I tried to sell it and the purchaser was going to be stuck at the same rent level - as they would be under current legislation (1400 a month at 8% yield gives a value of 210,000, 1,100 a month at 8% yield gives a value of 165,000).

Plenty of owner occupiers looking for a property ATM

brisan

bluelamp wrote: »

And that's another problem in itself.

Brooklyn is a great example of what can be achieved by converting warehouses, factories, offices etc into loft style apartments.

20 years ago you wouldn't set foot there. Then the apartments came along, filled the place with young people looking for cheap accomodation - and the bars, restaurants and shops etc followed.

Stupidly stringent building regulations are actually having a detrimental effect on the rental market now - it has effectively removed the lower end of the market.

The regulations were brought in to combat the substandard dangerous accommodation being offered

brisan

Hubertj wrote: »

I don’t believe that is what the poster means. In other countries commercial building have been successfully converted to quality accommodation. It seems that regulations in Ireland are not supportive of this. From reading other threads the building regs are more stringent than other countries and add significant costs to building and this feeds into the affordability issues.

As Priory hall and other complexes show builders have to be stringently regulated

beauf

brisan wrote: »

As Priory hall and other complexes show builders have to be stringently regulated

It's also shows they aren't. Same with all these other regulations and standards. Same with energy efficiency. The quality isn't there in the building industry.

beauf

brisan wrote: »

The regulations were brought in to combat the substandard dangerous accommodation being offered

What specific building regulations are you referring to?

Not that it's a bad thing, but a lot of the regulation made a lot of older properties unviable to upgrade. So it reduced supply especially at the low end.

New energy regulations will do the same. Everyone will just want new builds to avoid all the hassle and expense of older buildings. Which is gone except that building completions are still low and the covid has reduced that massively.. So the supply of new properties isn't there.

Leozord

is there rent cap for rent-a-room scheme?

The_Conductor

Leozord wrote: »

is there rent cap for rent-a-room scheme?

No.
The rent-a-room scheme is a Revenue scheme aimed at assisting property dwellers to earn up to 14k gross in any given calendar year.
This is a gross figure- it includes absolutely everything that exchanges hands- so if you ask someone for a contribution to cable tv, electricty/gas/heating, internet access- or anything else whatsoever- it counts towards the 14k limit.
You *have* to make a personal tax return declaring any income received under the scheme- even if there is no tax due.

In addition- once you go 1c over the 14k- the entire sum becomes taxable income- you do not get to proportionally assign it to keep the initial 14k tax free- the whole lot is taxed at a tax payers marginal rate of income, and unlike rental income- there are no allowable deductions.

Aka- *all* income counts towards the 14k- absolutely all money paid over, even if it is stated to be for another purpose (such as internet access- or anything else).

Eric Cartman

bluelamp wrote: »

And that's another problem in itself.

Brooklyn is a great example of what can be achieved by converting warehouses, factories, offices etc into loft style apartments.

20 years ago you wouldn't set foot there. Then the apartments came along, filled the place with young people looking for cheap accomodation - and the bars, restaurants and shops etc followed.

Stupidly stringent building regulations are actually having a detrimental effect on the rental market now - it has effectively removed the lower end of the market.

exactly this. In the US its quite common to rent 1000sq ft of basically open space and make it your own, when youre done you have to put it back to how you found it , the city inspector verifies all the electrical, plumbing and construction is up to code and thats all that needed.

here If your landlord doesn't give you a 4 ring hob people go mad and they all complain that landlords put in cheap furniture but heavens forbid you brought your own.

Eric Cartman

brisan wrote: »

As Priory hall and other complexes show builders have to be stringently regulated

beauf wrote: »

It's also shows they aren't. Same with all these other regulations and standards. Same with energy efficiency. The quality isn't there in the building industry.

and now sound proofing standards are the last ones being completely abused. I get the requirement for some standards but theres a difference between building fire safety regulations (which are absolutely required) and requiring an apartment to have dual aspects, be 25m2 and have a 4 ring hob included.

you could have an empty loft building scenario and it still be fire safe.

brisan

beauf wrote: »

It's also shows they aren't. Same with all these other regulations and standards. Same with energy efficiency. The quality isn't there in the building industry.

The original post I replied to said the exact opposite
It was the stringent regulations that stopped offices shops being converted to housing due to the high cost of complying with those regulations

Leozord

thanks for the explanation

The_Conductor wrote: »

In addition- once you go 1c over the 14k- the entire sum becomes taxable income- you do not get to proportionally assign it to keep the initial 14k tax free- the whole lot is taxed at a tax payers marginal rate of income, and unlike rental income- there are no allowable deductions.

specially this part. I was expecting that to any amount over 14K, just the difference would be taxed according to your PAYEE bracket (20% or 40% if I'm not wrong)

The_Conductor

Leozord wrote: »

thanks for the explanation



specially this part. I was expecting that to any amount over 14K, just the difference would be taxed according to your PAYEE bracket (20% or 40% if I'm not wrong)

Nope- its the entire sum- you extinguish the 14k exemption- once you go one penny over the 14k.

A lot of people don't realise this.

Eric Cartman

The_Conductor wrote: »

Nope- its the entire sum- you extinguish the 14k exemption- once you go one penny over the 14k.

A lot of people don't realise this.

and to be fair its a good chunk, If you had 2 rooms to rent out its 583 a month for each of them including bills , which is decent. its 1160 quid a month tax free, which would definitely pay a lot of suburban mortgages.

Leozord

The_Conductor wrote: »

Nope- its the entire sum- you extinguish the 14k exemption- once you go one penny over the 14k.

A lot of people don't realise this.

and if you rent a room to a tenant who is receiving HAP, are you entitled to get a mortgage interest relief as well?