Vacant Properties in Ireland

PropQueries

Hubertj wrote: »

Ok so if we take the CSO figure of 183k, the oversupply is 63k units based on a base vacancy rate of 6%. When you then look at local authority areas, more highly populated areas are below 6% so there is not an oversupply in those areas based on the analysis. For example south Dublin had a vacancy rate of 3.6% whereas Leitrim had a vacancy rate of 19.9%. Rent inflation - would a contributing factor be a lack of available stock in those areas?
So ther real question is how much of the 183k vacant units are usable especially is more densely populated areas? I hope it is more than 15% of the vacant properties is many of those areas as that would indicate a significant undersupply.
Having bothered my hole to do a bit of reading it is disingenuous to pipe on about 183k vacant properties without adding that there needs to be a % of vacant properties for the market to function.

Excellent point on every economy needs some vacant homes to function. But England had 216,000 vacant homes in 2018 and they have ten times our population.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Ok so if we take the CSO figure of 183k, the oversupply is 63k units based on a base vacancy rate of 6%. When you then look at local authority areas, more highly populated areas are below 6% so there is not an oversupply in those areas based on the analysis. For example south Dublin had a vacancy rate of 3.6% whereas Leitrim had a vacancy rate of 19.9%. Rent inflation - would a contributing factor be a lack of available stock in those areas?
So ther real question is how much of the 183k vacant units are usable especially is more densely populated areas? I hope it is more than 15% of the vacant properties is many of those areas as that would indicate a significant undersupply.
Having bothered my hole to do a bit of reading it is disingenuous to pipe on about 183k vacant properties without adding that there needs to be a % of vacant properties for the market to function.

Can you link to what you were reading, I'd be interested to read it as well, so I can understand it better?

And I've always piped on about 6% being the long term average vacancy rate in a functioning market!

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

The problem the government now has is what to do with all those excess vacant homes that still exist but they don’t control anymore.

The previous government had a fairly straightforward solution:

Mr Murphy said while the CSO “is not necessarily wrong, they have a different definition of ‘vacant dwelling’ than the man on the street might have”. He said it was now necessary to “work with the CSO to agree a definition of ‘vacant dwelling’.”

Marius34

PropQueries wrote: »

Which figure is wrong?

All highlighted statements.
If it would be just simply wrong numbers, that I would question the figures.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

Which figure is wrong?

You talk about 290bn of lending and property. The majority of it loan books that the funds bought cheap and as long as the majority repayment are made the fund makes money. I would speculate that the housing stock they purchased was minimal. Yes you have reit’s and private equity funds buying stock for the rental income but these are a very different business model.

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

All highlighted statements.
If it would be just simply wrong numbers, that I would question the figures.

So you’re stating my figures are correct/ incorrect? You’re allowed to state they’re wrong if that’s what you’re stating?

Marius34

PropQueries wrote: »

So you’re stating my figures are correct/ incorrect? You’re allowed to state they’re wrong if that’s what you’re stating?

Invented, based on your assumptions, not based on the facts/Reports etc.
Something that can not be verified with source.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

In 2008, AIB, BOI and Anglo had loans related to property and construction of c. €157 billion (not including mortgages).

I think we can probably assume that most of the €200 billion in property and business loans purchased by the international investment funds between 2012 and 2016 were related to property. The banks and NAMA weren’t selling many of their non property related performing loans.

Link here: https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/MScEPS/Money%20and%20Banking/moneynamking%20week12.pdf

Yes they bought the loans but not the properties!!!!

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

Invented, based on your assumptions, not based on the facts/Reports etc.
Something that can not be verified with source.

Ok, I’ve been scolded on many occasions to reposting my sources from the CSO etc.

If you want me to repost them all I will. I keep the links on notepad given the amount of times I’m asked so it’s not a problem.

Just need your confirmation so I don’t get scolded again.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/news/breakdown-housing-vacancy-figures-ireland

What is interesting is the 4000 vacant units in Dublin City giving a 7.7% vacancy rate.

Ok, as you say that study highlights that in a functioning property market there is a normal rate of vacancies - 6% -representing change of ownership/tenancies/renovations/death etc - and as such they state the figures for Dublin are normal/below normal. Indeed they drill down into the rental figures.

A high proportion of properties within the Dublin local authorities are vacant as a result of being For Sale or For Rent. In Dublin City this is particularly high with 15% of all vacant properties classed as being For Rent.

In addition available for rent in DLR was 8%, South Dublin was about 7% and Fingal was a little over 8%

Taking the figures of 3,757 of properties that were classified by the CSO as vacant for rent in Dublin City and Suburbs, and adding 1500 (approx 9.5% of the Unknown Vacancies in Dublin City and Suburbs) gives a total of 5257 properties available for rent on Sunday 24th April.

So far so good. All normal, and within the parameters of a perfectly, functioning property market nothing to see here.

Except that daft says in early May 2016 properties advertised in all of Dublin were at a record low - "just 1,100 properties available to rent at the start of May"

Something is not adding up.

Either daft is correct and we have 1,100 properties available to rent which represents a rental supply crisis or the CSO is correct and stock available to rent is 5257 which represents perfectly normal functioning market with healthy supply.

Or maybe those properties are classified as rental properties but they are not actually available to rent because their owners prefer to keep them empty for whatever reason best known to themselves.

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

Ok, I’ve been scolded on many occasions to reposting my sources from the CSO etc.

If you want me to repost them all I will. I keep the links on notepad given the amount of times I’m asked so it’s not a problem.

Just need your confirmation so I don’t get scolded again.

I'd like to see them again please.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, as you say that study highlights that in a functioning property market there is a normal rate of vacancies - 6% -representing change of ownership/tenancies/renovations/death etc - and as such they state the figures for Dublin are normal/below normal. Indeed they drill down into the rental figures.



In addition available for rent in DLR was 8%, South Dublin was about 7% and Fingal was a little over 8%

Taking the figures of 3,757 of properties that were classified by the CSO as vacant for rent in Dublin City and Suburbs, and adding 1500 (approx 9.5% of the Unknown Vacancies in Dublin City and Suburbs) gives a total of 5257 properties available for rent on Sunday 24th April.

So far so good. All normal, and within the parameters of a perfectly, functioning property market nothing to see here.

Except that daft says in early May 2016 properties advertised in all of Dublin were at a record low - "just 1,100 properties available to rent at the start of May"

Something is not adding up.

Either daft is correct and we have 1,100 properties available to rent which represents a rental supply crisis or the CSO is correct and stock available to rent is 5257 which represents perfectly normal functioning market with healthy supply.

Or maybe those properties are classified as rental properties but they are not actually available to rent because their owners prefer to keep them empty for whatever reason best known to themselves.

Factor in Airbnb, margin for error, s*itholes then call it 3300?

Pelezico

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, as you say that study highlights that in a functioning property market there is a normal rate of vacancies - 6% -representing change of ownership/tenancies/renovations/death etc - and as such they state the figures for Dublin are normal/below normal. Indeed they drill down into the rental figures.



In addition available for rent in DLR was 8%, South Dublin was about 7% and Fingal was a little over 8%

Taking the figures of 3,757 of properties that were classified by the CSO as vacant for rent in Dublin City and Suburbs, and adding 1500 (approx 9.5% of the Unknown Vacancies in Dublin City and Suburbs) gives a total of 5257 properties available for rent on Sunday 24th April.

So far so good. All normal, and within the parameters of a perfectly, functioning property market nothing to see here.

Except that daft says in early May 2016 properties advertised in all of Dublin were at a record low - "just 1,100 properties available to rent at the start of May"

Something is not adding up.

Either daft is correct and we have 1,100 properties available to rent which represents a rental supply crisis or the CSO is correct and stock available to rent is 5257 which represents perfectly normal functioning market with healthy supply.

Or maybe those properties are classified as rental properties but they are not actually available to rent because their owners prefer to keep them empty for whatever reason best known to themselves.

For me,the most amusing post on this thread for the last month has been advice given to you to reference Leo's dismissal of the CSO report about vacant houses in Ireland.

The advice was the fake news of Fingal vacant properties was there for everyone to see and must be correct.

Leo has been a prime culprit in spreading fake nnews about vacant properties and some people who should know better have been taken in hook line and sinker.

We will have an abundance of property in the next twelve months and are still building more...eighteen thousand more this year alone...for migrants who will never arrive.

I still believe property prices will fall in spite of the current aberration from affluent buyers.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Factor in Airbnb, margin for error, s*itholes then call it 3300?

Not sure why you’re discarding Airbnb and ****holes, and seems like high margin for error, but fair enough let’s call it 3300.

And now we’re 3 times the amount of properties claimed to be available as actually advertised.

Still does not make sense.

hometruths

Pelezico wrote: »

some people who should know better have been taken in hook line and sinker.

Indeed I’m still waiting for a reply from a couple of seasoned posters who made some pretty bold claims about the certainty, proof and quality of the Fingal study versus the census, but are seemingly unable to cite any sources.

But supposedly I’m one of the posters that spins data and peddles lies as facts.

(Though I will acknowledge a discreet and appreciated thanks from one of them!)

Pelezico

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, as you say that study highlights that in a functioning property market there is a normal rate of vacancies - 6% -representing change of ownership/tenancies/renovations/death etc - and as such they state the figures for Dublin are normal/below normal. Indeed they drill down into the rental figures.



In addition available for rent in DLR was 8%, South Dublin was about 7% and Fingal was a little over 8%

Taking the figures of 3,757 of properties that were classified by the CSO as vacant for rent in Dublin City and Suburbs, and adding 1500 (approx 9.5% of the Unknown Vacancies in Dublin City and Suburbs) gives a total of 5257 properties available for rent on Sunday 24th April.

So far so good. All normal, and within the parameters of a perfectly, functioning property market nothing to see here.

Except that daft says in early May 2016 properties advertised in all of Dublin were at a record low - "just 1,100 properties available to rent at the start of May"

Something is not adding up.

Either daft is correct and we have 1,100 properties available to rent which represents a rental supply crisis or the CSO is correct and stock available to rent is 5257 which represents perfectly normal functioning market with healthy supply.

Or maybe those properties are classified as rental properties but they are not actually available to rent because their owners prefer to keep them empty for whatever reason best known to themselves.

schmittel wrote: »

Indeed I’m still waiting for a reply from a couple of seasoned posters who made some pretty bold claims about the certainty, proof and quality of the Fingal study versus the census, but are seemingly unable to cite any sources.

But supposedly I’m one of the posters that spins data and peddles lies as facts.

(Though I will acknowledge a discreet and appreciated thanks from one of them!)

Well ..there are one or two in particular who have not responded to your rebuttal. They went ...offline for a few days...presumably to lick their wounds.

The advice to reference Leo was quite frankly hilarious.

The number of vacant homes is very significant should not be spun for political gain.

Marius34

PropQueries wrote: »

Ok, I’ve been scolded on many occasions to reposting my sources from the CSO etc.

If you want me to repost them all I will. I keep the links on notepad given the amount of times I’m asked so it’s not a problem.

Just need your confirmation so I don’t get scolded again.

I have not highlighted a single CSO data in your comment. I highlighted only conspiracy part.
If you can not go back to read what's highlighted, I'm sharing again:

PropQueries wrote: »

The state had to engineer a housing supply problem to encourage
Part of this strategy was to effectively try remove 5,000 bedsits from the market by making them illegal.
The problem the government now has is what to do with all those excess vacant homes that still exist but they don’t control anymore.
now primarily owned by a few large international investment funds
future direction is going to be decided by whatever decisions these few investment funds make

I'm confident those statements are definitely taken not from CSO or any other report/media..

1) show the source that government by purpose engineered supply problem?
2) show the source that investments funds holds tens of thousands of vacant homes?
and, so on..

Please not your assumptions..

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Not sure why you’re discarding Airbnb and ****holes, and seems like high margin for error, but fair enough let’s call it 3300.

And now we’re 3 times the amount of properties claimed to be available as actually advertised.

Still does not make sense.

So I think we can safely say that in some densely populated parts of the country there is no oversupply. In relation to the vacant units perhaps another factor to consider, which you often reference, is the type of property that is vacant - houses not apartments or vice versa.

Bass Reeves

Once again we have some years clutching at straws regarding the vacancy rates. There is no doubt there is a portion of houses vacant. However trying to get those houses available may be harder than you imagine.

I am not sure if the CSOor any other studies have a derelict box on there forms but it might be more apt. If you ever have the reSon to do a walk through Local Authority housing area in a lot of the estates you will see 10%+ houses horded up. These require a virtual complete rebuild.

Another is people in nursing homes where the family will not rent the house because of risk involved if person is in the fair deal scheme.

I have a rental property in a small noughties development. Out of 18there are three vacant two long-term 5years+. Two have been recently sold one for about 12 months and new buyer has not done anything with the property it. One is sold about 4-6 months it was refurbished before sale again no movement as to what owner intends to do with it. The last house is vacant for as long as I own a house in the development.

Village where I live near has two properties long term vacant on the street through the village both would require 50k in one case and 100k in the other to make habitable. There are two houses for sale on the street.

Small town 8 miles away has 15-20 vacent properties of varying from 1-5 years + there is about half of these for sale most require serious refurbishment in the 50k+ bracket. 3-4would be flood risk properties. Mist would be small properties suitable for refurbishment to 2 bed houses. There is two houses in a small noughties development of 8 town houses which either is a LA development or rented by LA/HAP. Both vacent both requiring refurbishment.

There a good sample of vacent houses

Lolle06

I have noticed that a good few „new build“ detached family homes that were never finished after the CT years and sitting idle and overgrown ever since, are being put on the market in our local area now. But imo the asking price is eye watering, if you consider the condition they are in.

I presume it was a small property developer that started to build them and got caught out by the finance crash in 2008.

hometruths

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Once again we have some years clutching at straws regarding the vacancy rates. There is no doubt there is a portion of houses vacant. However trying to get those houses available may be harder than you imagine.

I am not sure if the CSOor any other studies have a derelict box on there forms but it might be more apt.

The census methodology claims CSO do not classify derelict properties as vacant, nobody is clutching at straws to explain the numbers. Except maybe Fingal Co Co.

Dwellings under construction and derelict properties were not included in the count of vacant dwellings. As a result the empty housing units were classified as vacant house, vacant apartment or holiday home only if the dwelling was considered fit for habitation by the enumerator. In the case of newly constructed dwellings, that meant that the roof, doors, windows or walls had to be completely built or installed. For older dwellings that were unoccupied the roof, doors and windows had to be fully intact.

Graham

Mod Note

Thread split from property market 2020.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

So I think we can safely say that in some densely populated parts of the country there is no oversupply. In relation to the vacant units perhaps another factor to consider, which you often reference, is the type of property that is vacant - houses not apartments or vice versa.

Are you saying there is no oversupply because the densely populated parts of the country are actually pretty close to the normal rates of functioning property market - 6%?

i.e yes Leitrim and Roscommon are off the scale for reasons we all agree on, but as far as Dublin is concerned it is pretty much what you'd expect?

cnocbui

A holiday home isn't really a vacant property from the point of view of unoccupied potential housing stock. It has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether there is sufficient, or insufficient housing available, as they aren't available for that purpose.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Are you saying there is no oversupply because the densely populated parts of the country are actually pretty close to the normal rates of functioning property market - 6%?

i.e yes Leitrim and Roscommon are off the scale for reasons we all agree on, but as far as Dublin is concerned it is pretty much what you'd expect?

Well if we are to trust the ability and competence of our public and civil servants it would indicate that in a number of areas there is no over supply of property. Would you disagree?

Hubertj

cnocbui wrote: »

A holiday home isn't really a vacant property from the point of view of unoccupied potential housing stock. It has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether there is sufficient, or insufficient housing available, as they aren't available for that purpose.

From reading the reports holiday homes are not included

PropQueries

Hubertj wrote: »

From reading the reports holiday homes are not included

That's true. If the holidays homes were included, the Census 2016 counted the number of vacant properties at c.245,000. It was split between c. 180,000 residential properties and c. 65,000 holiday home properties.

Marius34

Hubertj wrote: »

From reading the reports holiday homes are not included

Maybe some reports does not include. But Census does include, they are defined as vacant based on Census.

"Of the total 245,460 vacant dwellings, 62,148 were identified as holiday homes by the enumerators."

Census vacancy are not focused on long term vacancy. Thus house owned and in use, can well be seen as vacant if person haven't stayed overnight at home on census night, based on Census definitions.

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

Maybe some reports does not include. But Census does include, they are defined as vacant based on Census.

"Of the total 245,460 vacant dwellings, 62,148 were identified as holiday homes by the enumerators."

Census vacancy are not focused on long term vacancy. Thus house owned and in use, can well be seen as vacant if person haven't stayed overnight at home on census night, based on Census definitions.

That's true. But they explain their methodology for the counting of a home as vacant in the link below:

"What were the rules that made enumerators determine that the homes were vacant?

Census enumerators adhered to detailed procedures that have been developed by CSO in consultation with key experts across several censuses. As part of these procedures, enumerators varied the times of the day and days of the week they called to homes in order to make contact with householders. For example, when an enumerator called to a home during the day and failed to make contact, they dropped off their contact telephone number on a calling card. The subsequent visits were at different times such as evenings and weekends.

Enumerators also looked for signs of vacancy such as post and junk mail building up, no lights on at night time, no cars in driveways, overgrown gardens and no windows open. If they observed any signs of occupancy, they could not record the home as vacant. They also checked with neighbours to enquire about the homes where they could not make contact. If neighbours told them that there were people living in these homes, the enumerator could not record them as vacant."

But they openly admit that there are many reasons on why they may have been vacant:

"CSO has produced new additional figures giving an insight into why some of the 183,312 homes were vacant on Census Night. While we don’t have a complete picture, we did note that many of the homes recorded as vacant were for sale, rental properties, had a deceased owner or were being renovated. Many of these may well have been occupied again a few weeks after the Census was completed."

However, as people can only live in one house at any one time, it does show that there was/is still a significant number of vacant homes (even if you divide their figure in half) that can be brought into use through either a carrot (tax incentives) or a stick (vacant home tax) if the government did wish to solve the housing supply issue.

Just to add that the government does have a few good incentives at the moment such as the long-term leasing initiative and I think it may be beginning to work at the moment and any investors holding out are placing an unwise gamble. There may be a time in the very near future when they decide to cash in and there may be few buyers, few renters and the current government incentives such as the long term leasing initiative may no longer be needed by them and discontinued.

Link to their vacant home methodology here: https://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2016reports/census2016vacanthousingstatisticsfaqs/#:~:text=It%20includes%20homes%20that%20were,in%20other%20counts%20of%20vacancy.

Marius34

PropQueries wrote: »

That's true. But they explain their methodology for the counting of a home as vacant in the link below:

However, as people can only live in one house at any one time, it does show that there was/is still a significant number of vacant homes (even if you divide their figure in half) that can be brought into use through either a carrot (tax incentives) or a stick (vacant home tax) if the government did wish to solve the housing supply issue.

Yes, they explain, which means temporal vacant, that is in use, can be well classified as vacant. Holiday homes are vacant as well.
They classify 245,460 as vacant. As it includes that much of types of different "vacancies", and doesn't speak about long term vacancy, thus we can't know, if that means a lot, if it's normal, or low.

The second part, why should I believe you? You can not provide any source? Just your assumptions and believes.