Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere.

Fair Deal changes might actually happen but...

  • 23-03-2022 10:03am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭ Ray Palmer


    They are now actually acknowledging that this left property vacant

    The thing is they forgot about all the rental rules that also make this unappealing along with the threats of other restrictions by current and possible government. Are people going to risk the historical family home where by they could not get rid of the tenants and possibly forced to keep renting to them indefinitely.

    If I was asked by a friend should they do this I would advise them not to due to unstable situation that politicians have created to score points with each other and the public rather than addressing the issues sensibly and sustainably.

    Post edited by L1011 on


«13456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997


    Its a dumb idea to offer accommodation they don't have and not build some housing, not even temporary housing.

    A house thats in the fair deal is usually full of belongings and need of refurbishment, not the mention the legal disputes that go on for years with such properties.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997


    On the same page as the above article...

    Red tape delaying new social housing by up to two years

    Government micromanagement is holding up the planning process and increasing costs for the taxpayer



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭ Ray Palmer


    I really don't agree with that argument. This is a humanitarian action taking in people from a war zone. It is the right thing to do. Nobody is expecting everybody to get their own front door. We can take people in and we can help. There are a lot less obstacles to housing refugees temporarily than permanent accommodation for citizens.

    If something were to happen in Ireland I would expect other nations to help therefore it our duty to help others. At least people seem annoyed with the government and not the Ukrainian people, for the moment.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,599 ✭✭✭ whippet


    that all sounds far too simple. I am in this bind with fair deal. However - I don't have Enduring POA over my mother and my father died a few years back. In theory I can't really do anything with my mam's property. I am sure I'm not alone in this predicament - I can't enter a rental agreement on behalf of my mother with anyone.

    It is a 4 bed bungalow in a large town commuting distance to Dublin City centre and has been empty for 3 years and is currently boarded up. It will need modernisation - but in reality it will be knocked down and either apartments or a couple of semi-ds will be built on the site.

    Its a real shame



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭ Ray Palmer


    When I go visit my mam's street you can kind of spot the homes that are empty because you know the people that own them. The Smith's house doesn't have flowers in the window anymore because she is in a home. The houses look fine, so far, but there is a lot of them in really prime spots. The thing is many families have 5 kids so the hassle of renting doesn't appeal to them and the way Fair Deal is now there is no way. Doubt they will start being rented even if they change the regulations.

    It is patently riddiculious that the government had the policy to start with. Increased revenue to the state, increases to rental market and sustaining neighborhoods all seem like things they would want instead of mothballing perfectly good houses that often go into disrepair.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,599 ✭✭✭ whippet


    exactly - there are 5 siblings in our family and when my mam passes the property will be sold. If we were to rent it out now the revenue after tax wouldn't be worth the hassle of being a landlord and also the hassle of having to have it vacant to sell it. So it just makes sense to leave it as is until the time comes



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997


    It's not an argument it's the reality.

    How are you going to house people with housing you don't have. Are you creating temporary facilities to house them, do you have spare capacity.

    Or is this another sounds bite to make people think you're doing something when your actually sitting on your hands.

    Its tokenism on the back of other people's suffering and should be called out for what it is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump


    Lets consider the other side of this. If the state is paying a lot of money to provide care to a person while that person has a considerable asset, why should the State not be receiving some benefit in the form of the house being released to the market in some capacity.

    If there are 10 kids rubbing their hands at the thought of getting their share from selling the asset while concluding that the "income" from renting it would be minimal (even though it would still be the parent's income!!!!) then how about some of those 10 kids get together and turn that concern into action and mind their parent at home.

    Perhaps the Fair Deal should be changed so that, say 50% of the market rent for that house is added on to the debt owed by the house for the time it is vacant along with the existing charges (which might be modified to compensate a little)



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,487 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    “There are about 8,000 homes vacant as a result of a person being in long-term care and if a fraction of them came back into the market it would of course help,”

    Even if they released all of those 8000 homes it would still only make up a fraction of the houses required. this is just a soundbite and nothing more. If they want to make the rent received tax-free then just do it, dont pretend it will make a material difference to the housing crisis.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 38,487 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    up to 7.5% of the value of the home will be given to the state to repay

    I may be misremembering but it is not 7.5% a year for the first 3 years she is in a nursing home so a max of 22.5%?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,599 ✭✭✭ whippet


    Apologies - I meant per year !! Yes you are correct - so up to €112,500 off the value of my mam’s house. Thankfully it won’t be up to that rate as her contributions to the nursing home from her pension were quite large so the state’s contribution hasn’t been to that level.


    so nothing for free here - and people still think the assets should be more or less seized and handed over to the state



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭ Ray Palmer


    Don't know who you are to have such an offended personal view of me and I don't care. There is absolutely no reason for such a personal attack. It is an argument and I don't share your views on humanitarian efforts and think little of those who are so angry about helping people in need.

    It is better than nothing in an area that needed a change but my point is with the other issue and threats on landlords it would still be inadvisable to do it. Which is a shame and wasteful.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    Yes. Which is why I said:

    along with the existing charges (which might be modified to compensate a little)




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,599 ✭✭✭ whippet


    My mother will in effect pay for just about all her nursing home care through her direct contribution and the lien on the property



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    Get out of that. On one hand having people, who have the assets to afford it, pay for their care is "forced seizure of assets" and on the other hand the people who will inherit those assets apparently have no interest in receiving the money when they are sold and the proceeds divvied up. You do realise that none of us are going to live forever - right? And that after a person dies, they don't get any benefit from having the house in their ownership? The only benefit accrues to the beneficiaries of the will.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    Try reading it again slowly:

    along with the existing charges (which might be modified to compensate a little)


    Modify the existing standing charges (i.e. reduce them) but add a variable amount to them to encourage that those properties be rented out. Hardly a difficult idea to understand? You might leave the expectant beneficiaries better off at the end of it if they do decide to allow their juicy inheritance to be put to practical use


    E.g reduce the 7.5% charge down to 6% for three years but charge 50% of the market rent as a running charge for the duration the house is vacant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,487 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    I outlined a situation where renting out the property is not possible but you ignored that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭ Ray Palmer


    Not actually true. While the person is alive and they know there hard earned assets are going to family is a huge benefit to them. People knowing the state will take a huge portion upsets very many. So while the benefactor receives the asset they aren't the only ones benefiting



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    Everyone thinks they are special and everyone has excuses. These properties can't be rented ....... yet you'll find that as soon as probate is taken out they'll be up in the local auctioneer's window ..........



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,487 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    you clearly are not reading the posts you are responding to and are only here to troll.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    Perhaps the person (who knows that their benefactor will be receiving a nice inheritance) might like that that beneficiary to help them in their final years rather than carting them off to a nursing home, letting the State look after them



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    Well sure then it is a bit silly to go in under the Fair Deal in the first place. It is optional. You can pay privately too



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    I'm not the one not reading the posts. Why would you have an issue with changing the 7.5% down to 6% (max 3 years) and including 50% of the market rent of the property? Just as an example.



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,487 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    because some people are not in a position to rent out their properties. again, you didn't read the post you replied to.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,599 ✭✭✭ whippet


    Of course you can pay privately - €5,500 per month .. or €66k per annum - this would have meant that we would have to finance that additional 30k per annum ourselves .. but mam’s house is there, it is her asset and it is used to pay for her care … even if it means there is less value in the house for inheritance.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement