Irish Property Market 2020 Part 2

hometruths

Assetbacked wrote: »

It is the landlord or the tenant who has no savings and precarious employment who would be on the hook for the arrears otherwise. It is effectively one group over the other. That bit in bold above is the outcome on whoever has to suck it up - my point is that the government, when they introduced these laws, knew they would be shafting the landlords as there is no way the arrears will be paid by a good faith tenant who accrued arrears due to their precarious financial state caused by covid.

And under these circumstances do you think that the landlord should be able to end the tenancy for non payment of rent?

brisan

schmittel wrote: »

And under these circumstances do you think that the landlord should be able to end the tenancy for non payment of rent?

Of course, but expect the RTB and Threshold to have its say and once a reasonable attempt to pay the arrears back is made then no eviction is allowed.
Reasonable could mean 100 a month or 1000 a month
Even with a 100 a month off the arrears he gets something ,if he evicts the tenants he will get nothing
its going to be interesting to see how this plays out
If he decides to evict and serve notice how long will it take to get an order?
There could be hundreds of cases up before the RTB for determination .
if a tenant is served an eviction notice will he continue to pay rent even if he can now afford it if he is back working.
That would leave the landlord further out of pocket.

Assetbacked

schmittel wrote: »

And under these circumstances do you think that the landlord should be able to end the tenancy for non payment of rent?

This is the bane of my tenant existence, not being able to kick tenants out for non-payment of rent. It should be a simple one-month process and they're gone. Otherwise it just hurts good tenants!

In the current circumstances, I don't know how prevalent it actually is that there are tenants taking this law for a ride but there is some merit to preventing evictions temporarily. However, perhaps this time has passed and the government should start to be putting money into the problem hole as it persists with ridiculous reopening plans.

Marius34

Assetbacked wrote: »

Headline; "House prices rose slightly in May despite lockdown limiting sales".

Article; "Month on month there was a fall of 0.1pc in May."

It's purposely misleading as house prices did in fact fall in May, it is in comparison to May of last year that they are slightly higher.

Assetbacked wrote: »

My point was just that the headline was misleading. But that data on house prices falling or stalling is pre-covid impact so the trend was for a slight correction/downward trend. I think 15-20% drops aren't actually big if in 2 years they gradually reduced by these amounts.

However, what is more concerning is that once there is a bit more normality to the economy (i.e. no government eviction bans and covid payments) the job losses will come. It is extremely worrying what has already occurred in respect of job losses and salary cuts. The pandemic is raging on and likely to be be mixed up in flu season hysteria in a few months so perhaps we could see re-introductions of restrictions on off into next year. If things went back to close to normal by September/October, we wouldn't see housing data on the impact of covid until the post-June 2021 (i.e. Q2 reports due to the lag between unfreezing the economy and house transactions getting up and running again to be reflected in data), but potentially the way we are crawling through the pandemic, it could be Q3 and Q4 next year when we start to see the initial impacts on the housing market!

Are you saying that headline is misleading, because price metrics should be compared on MoM and not YoY?

hometruths

Assetbacked wrote: »

This is the bane of my tenant existence, not being able to kick tenants out for non-payment of rent. It should be a simple one-month process and they're gone. Otherwise it just hurts good tenants!

In the current circumstances, I don't know how prevalent it actually is that there are tenants taking this law for a ride but there is some merit to preventing evictions temporarily. However, perhaps this time has passed and the government should start to be putting money into the problem hole as it persists with ridiculous reopening plans.

Ok fair enough, as long as landlord has ability to take back the property I have no problem with the idea of the LL bearing the cost of arrears.

I was approaching the discussion in context of JimmyViks point that he expects to see legislation banning evictions because of Covid related arrears.

If that were to happen I think it would be unwise to expect LLs to suck up the arrears.

Assetbacked

Marius34 wrote: »

Are you saying that headline is misleading, because price metrics should be compared on MoM and not YoY?

The house prices did not rise in May just gone, they are higher than May last year but the rise from May last year didn't actually happen in May. I would say "House prices higher in May 2020 than May 2019" or something along those lines. Snapshots are just snapshots, they serve a purpose but need to also be taken in a wider context.

brisan

schmittel wrote: »

Ok fair enough, as long as landlord has ability to take back the property I have no problem with the idea of the LL bearing the cost of arrears.

I was approaching the discussion in context of JimmyViks point that he expects to see legislation banning evictions because of Covid related arrears.

If that were to happen I think it would be unwise to expect LLs to suck up the arrears.

If there is say 6 months covid arrears and the tenant starts paying the full rent again and lets say 100 a month off the arrears .
Why would you evict him ?
You end up with no arrears ,possibly another months rent lost,decorating costs ,EA fees etc.
if he was a good tenant before covid he will probably be a good tenant after covid .

Assetbacked

brisan wrote: »

If the covid payments stop in Sept -October and job looses happen straight away (which I believe they will ) we may see it earlier than that .
One small example
My local has 12 full time employees ( 8 barmen and 4 in the food section ) plus numerous part timers
All are on a covid payment of one type or another .
When these stop ,and business at less than 50% than a lot of layoffs are in the pipeline and the staff know this
The Airline industry ,the Aviation Leasing industry, the tourist sector ,the hotel and bar trade,the restaurant business and high street retail are all on their knees
Covid payments are stopping them from going under .
They stop and we will see major job losses .
We will follow the same path as Britain and the states

What surprised me was hearing about the big law firms cutting hours, bonuses, partners' equity and salaries so soon into lockdown. Across the big Irish firms the best cases have to date only cut partners' equity payouts but a couple of the top 6 have cut bonuses and put staff on 4 day weeks. The surprising part was that it happened so soon as this industry would've been a booming industry the last few years. The massive banks in the US have made billions of euro worth of bad loan provisions and mortgage delinquencies in the US are rising. It's just very ominous in terms of the economy.

MrMusician18

JimmyVik wrote: »

The ones ive spoken to about it , their reasons were Save money, why pay rent, and wanted to look after parents during lockdown.

My point is if they are dying to get back to Dublin, there is nothing stopping them from relocating back now. And indeed nothing forced them to relocate to the countryside in the first place.

Marius34

Assetbacked wrote: »

The house prices did not rise in May just gone, they are higher than May last year but the rise from May last year didn't actually happen in May. I would say "House prices higher in May 2020 than May 2019" or something along those lines. Snapshots are just snapshots, they serve a purpose but need to also be taken in a wider context.

Price/Inflation change most common measure is annual YoY change, as well called inflation rate. In most case you don't even need to specify if it's YoY.
You may need to rewrite majority of articles that has price/inflation in their titles, as in many case it's not explained this in details in the titles when they use standard YoY measure.
I believe problem is not that they didn't specify in the title that it's YoY, but that it's not what you want to read.

Cyrus

Assetbacked wrote: »

What surprised me was hearing about the big law firms cutting hours, bonuses, partners' equity and salaries so soon into lockdown. Across the big Irish firms the best cases have to date only cut partners' equity payouts but a couple of the top 6 have cut bonuses and put staff on 4 day weeks. The surprising part was that it happened so soon as this industry would've been a booming industry the last few years. The massive banks in the US have made billions of euro worth of bad loan provisions and mortgage delinquencies in the US are rising. It's just very ominous in terms of the economy.

dont be surprised at all these firms are very reactive to current economic activity, its not like they leave a lot of money in the firm,the partners take the bulk of it out every year.

cutting staff hours and bonuses safegaurds the partners take for the year.

hometruths

brisan wrote: »

If there is say 6 months covid arrears and the tenant starts paying the full rent again and lets say 100 a month off the arrears .
Why would you evict him ?
You end up with no arrears ,possibly another months rent lost,decorating costs ,EA fees etc.
if he was a good tenant before covid he will probably be a good tenant after covid .

I probably wouldn't evict him if he was making attempt to pay off arrears.

I am talking about scenarios where tenants stopped paying completely, built up covid arrears and then wish to continue the tenancy with the arrears written off.

I also suspect a large amount of covid rent arrears are opportunistic. i.e strategic default for renters.

MrMusician18

Marius34 wrote: »

Price/Inflation change most common measure is annual YoY change, as well called inflation rate. In most case you don't even need to specify if it's YoY.
You may need to rewrite majority of articles that has price/inflation in their titles, as in many case it's not explained this in details in the titles when they use standard YoY measure.
I believe problem is not that they didn't specify in the title that it's YoY, but that it's not what you want to read.

The issue with using YoY is that it doesn't capture the effects of Covid properly. It's the current state of the market that people want to know - not out of date statistics.

YoY is irrelevant in market that's taken a sudden dive. All it really says is that sales that closed in May 2020, got no better value than May 19.

It does tell you those that advocate rushing out to buy before the market leaves you behind were wrong though.

brisan

schmittel wrote: »

I probably wouldn't evict him if he was making attempt to pay off arrears.

I am talking about scenarios where tenants stopped paying completely, built up covid arrears and then wish to continue the tenancy with the arrears written off.

I also suspect a large amount of covid rent arrears are opportunistic. i.e strategic default for renters.

If he was a good tenant before covid and is now paying rent ,why evict .
You are not getting arrears either way and just adding more expense on to yourself

hometruths

brisan wrote: »

If he was a good tenant before covid and is now paying rent ,why evict .
You are not getting arrears either way and just adding more expense on to yourself

I would not evict him if he was a good tenant before Covid, is now paying rent and had a plausible explanation of why he could not pay the rent and could not make any attempt to pay arrears ie lost his job and was not eligible for any welfare support, and his new job is 50% pay then I would probably not evict him.

If he had stopped paying rent when emergency measures announced, and then started again as son as emergency measures repealed, then without an explanation and proof of why I would probably evict him.

Ush1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

having a job also isnt a guarantee of getting a mortgage, neoclassical economics is clearly failing, price alone is a dreadful method of gauging the critical needs of society

I'm not gauging the needs of society, there will always be demand for material things, and there will always be barriers to attaining them.

JimmyVik

MrMusician18 wrote: »

My point is if they are dying to get back to Dublin, there is nothing stopping them from relocating back now. And indeed nothing forced them to relocate to the countryside in the first place.

I wouldnt presume to know their minds.
They just do what suits them best.

lalababa

Claw Hammer wrote: »

After the initial build, during which your builders will buy a few pints and roles in the local pubs and shops, you will contribute little or nothing to the local economy. You will make it harder for locals to obtain housing as you have taken a site. You will spend very little money in your holiday area, as you will be mostly self catering and quite likely bringing in your supplies from outside the area. Unoccupied holiday homes in resort areas are a blight. They contribute very little to the local economy and cause a lot of problems.

They are a bit of a blight. (Dotted everywhere, most were reasonably non standoutish, tis usually the locals 1995 on houses that stand out- build on a mound/ bay window s on both floors /other bits sticking out, painted pink/yellow, big garage )Used to travel through back roads of Kerry during the winter. Only 1 in 5 with evidence of living.
But that said getting a holiday home built or even remodeled would be a big contribution to local trades and suppliers. Building a house would keep close to 3 families going for a year. In places where there are only 30 kids going to the local primary.

Assetbacked

Cyrus wrote: »

dont be surprised at all these firms are very reactive to current economic activity, its not like they leave a lot of money in the firm,the partners take the bulk of it out every year.

cutting staff hours and bonuses safegaurds the partners take for the year.

I'd be sickened working til 9pm most nights the last year and then have lost my bonus! I certainly wouldn't be doing those hours going forward if my bonus was cut unless I was masochistic.

Bass Reeves

brisan wrote: »

If he was a good tenant before covid and is now paying rent ,why evict .
You are not getting arrears either way and just adding more expense on to yourself

Usually the lads that stopped paying are not good tenants anyway. Most people will take a balanced view on it. However anybody that stopped paying rent completely would need a very good explanation. If someone had come to you at the start and was giving you 50% of the rent and when they got back to work started paying you again well and good. Most LL would make an agreement on arrears. But if a lad stopped completely and returned to work during COVID and only started to pay rent again after COVID eviction freeze stopped then I be getting rid of him unless he came up with the readies.

As well on arrears a 100/month is no good on outstanding arrears of 4-5k especially if the tenant was making no attempt to pay anything during COVID period.

fliball123

Wanderer78 wrote: »

security of accommodation is critical human need

And it has to be paid for by someone somewhere houses do not grow on trees

fliball123

Cantstandsya wrote: »

I want a private jet, what way does that affect private jet prices?

According to our left leaners in this country people should be entitled to a house but not a private jet. Dont shoot the messenger I am just telling it as it is.

fliball123

brisan wrote: »

And a lot of them are quite happy renting a private house in a private estate with the Gov picking up the tab and will refuse council houses if they are offered them
So they do not really want a house

https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-refusals-ireland-4607803-May2019/

Oh they do want a house don't get mixed up now. They don't want to be told where the house is they want to pick the location themselves. There is a big big difference

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

that may all be true, but my point is it should not be the landlord picking up the tab.

It should be the tenant, or if the government decides that it is too big a burden for the tenant to bear, cost should be borne by the taxpayer.

No the taxpayer has nothing to do with this. Sorry but the tenant gets the benefit he or she should pay end of

bluelamp

brisan wrote: »

If the covid payments stop in Sept -October and job looses happen straight away (which I believe they will ) we may see it earlier than that .

Agreed - which is why I would bet the TWSS / PUP wont stop before next summer - because it's probably actually the cheaper option for the taxpayer long term.

The state will be paying regardless, whether it be in the form of the TWSS or PUP as they are now, or in the form of jobseekers / rent allowance / HAP / council housing / back to education etc if they stop the covid payments.

At least with the current set up you're keeping people limping along in their jobs, or at least maintaining a connection with their employer, and keeping them in private housing - so hopefully they can get back on their feet quickly when the time comes.

The alternative is to let tens of thousands of people become unemployed who work in the pubs, clubs, restaurants, hotels, hostels, airlines, aircraft leasing, public transport, event and conference spaces, theatres, wedding venues, catering, anything else tourism related.... the list goes on.

Unless this government wants to vastly increase the "homeless" figures, put thousands more on the public housing list, pump millions more into HAP, allow thousands more become become officially unemployed, the covid payments are staying.

MrMusician18

bluelamp wrote: »

Agreed - which is why I would bet the TWSS / PUP wont stop before next summer - because it's probably actually the cheaper option for the taxpayer long term.

The state will be paying regardless, whether it be in the form of the TWSS or PUP as they are now, or in the form of jobseekers / rent allowance / HAP / council housing / back to education etc if they stop the covid payments.

At least with the current set up you're keeping people limping along in their jobs, or at least maintaining a connection with their employer, and keeping them in private housing - so hopefully they can get back on their feet quickly when the time comes.

The alternative is to let tens of thousands of people become unemployed who work in the pubs, clubs, restaurants, hotels, hostels, airlines, aircraft leasing, public transport, event and conference spaces, theatres, wedding venues, catering, anything else tourism related.... the list goes on.

Unless this government wants to vastly increase the "homeless" figures, put thousands more on the public housing list, pump millions more into HAP, allow thousands more become become officially unemployed, the covid payments are staying.

Maintaining the status quo isn't sustainable from a public finances perspective. The real fun will begin when the government stay to selectively withdraw support from business it deems non-viable. You'll have ever business owner not selected for support complaining that they are being unfairly treated. The underlying problem is that a lot of business (particularly service based business) are only viable in times of economic growth e.g. a speciality birdseed shop and wouldn't survive an economic cycle anyway.

bluelamp

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Maintaining the status quo isn't sustainable from a public finances perspective. The real fun will begin when the government stay to selectively withdraw support from business it deems non-viable.

I cant see any changes to it happening any time soon.

Neither keeping the payment or scrapping them is a sustainable option - but the damage done to the economy by stopping them would be far far greater than continuing to pay them.

Even if the businesses / jobs that the payments are supporting right now arent viable, I'd argue it's still worth paying them for now. What will be achieved by letting those business close down right now? Landlords left with empty unrentable premises, mortgages / rent of staff left unpaid, reduced spending in the local economy by those workers, increased dependence on social welfare supports either way - just in a different form.

It would be better for society overall to continue as is - and at least keep things tipping over until there is viable alternative employment out there. You'd just be putting people from one form of social welfare to another - and removed any chance those jobs / businesses might have had of surviving.

Iceman29

LasersGoPewPew wrote: »

There will be no drop in residential property prices in desirable areas in South Dublin in the 400-600k range. People who own these desireable properties will hold on until the economic crisis has passed. I have been searching for 8 months. Any properties I bid on in this range have all sold above list price which I have been tracking meticulously. There are buyers pulling out of deals but they're only chancing their arm for a discount

This thread is filled dreamers and fear mongers

What a load of nonsense.....have you even looked into this before posting a ridiculous comment? it's gas that the deniers all liking it too.... you guys are trying so hard to keep up the charade....

There are loads of examples already if you just bothered to look..... see below a few (remember these would have been agreed probably before covid actually really did any damage ) so what hope is there for the prices not to be affected in the coming months when the true damage is clear?


8 ROSSMORE CLOSE, Templeogue, Dublin 6W 550k - reduced to 530 - sold 508
72 MARSHAM COURT, STILLORGAN, Blackrock, Co. Dublin asking 495 sold 445
7 MAPAS RD, DUBLIN, Dalkey, Co. Dublin asking 725 - 700
17 ROCK ROAD, CO DUBLIN, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 475 - 441
3 GLENAGEARY COURT, DUBLIN, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin 400 -385
59 MONALOE PARK RD, DUBLIN, Blackrock, Co. Dublin original 575 reduced 550 sold 525
GREENGATES, ADELAIDE RD, Glenageary, Co. Dublin original 850 - reduced to 750 - sold 680


that's all from just the first page. I'm sure there are 100's more.

Cyrus

Iceman29 wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.....have you even looked into this before posting a ridiculous comment? it's gas that the deniers all liking it too.... you guys are trying so hard to keep up the charade....

There are loads of examples already if you just bothered to look..... see below a few (remember these would have been agreed probably before covid actually really did any damage ) so what hope is there for the prices not to be affected in the coming months when the true damage is clear?


8 ROSSMORE CLOSE, Templeogue, Dublin 6W 550k - reduced to 530 - sold 508
72 MARSHAM COURT, STILLORGAN, Blackrock, Co. Dublin asking 495 sold 445
7 MAPAS RD, DUBLIN, Dalkey, Co. Dublin asking 725 - 700
17 ROCK ROAD, CO DUBLIN, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 475 - 441
3 GLENAGEARY COURT, DUBLIN, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin 400 -385
59 MONALOE PARK RD, DUBLIN, Blackrock, Co. Dublin original 575 reduced 550 sold 525
GREENGATES, ADELAIDE RD, Glenageary, Co. Dublin original 850 - reduced to 750 - sold 680


that's all from just the first page. I'm sure there are 100's more.

Again you are making inferences basis the asking price decreases which were being chased up . If they are selling for less than what the equivalent house sold for last year that’s one thing

If it’s less than and over egged asking price it’s not indicative of much really

Iceman29

Cyrus wrote: »

Again you are making inferences basis the asking price decreases which were being chased up . If they are selling for less than what the equivalent house sold for last year that’s one thing

If it’s less than and over egged asking price it’s not indicative of much really

HAHA unreal. So when will you guys actually give up the charade?
Here is clear evidence from one page of checks....

What i was actually doing was proving that other poster wrong. they claimed that there wont be any price drops....... there are several facts but if you guys don't want to believe facts i really don't know what more i can do for you.