Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please 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. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why I'm taking my rental off the market
Options
Comments
-
utmbuilder wrote: »i rent out at 1500, pay 700ish a month in tax , put 800 off the mortgage add 400euro out of own pocket
Dont forget your landlord expenses. They can be heavy, especially if you opt to use an agent. Its amazing how often washing machines break down in rental properties..utmbuilder wrote: »property value should increase greatly being inflation proof so there are still gains but its a full term investment not a quick buck
Over the long term property value increase should match wage inflation. CGT has no allowance for inflation so you will pay 33% of that inflation back as tax when you sell.0 -
-
-
handlemaster wrote: »usually one which did not purchase to rent out. .e.g lost job and moved abroad for work
Would that not be accidental or unintended landlords?0 -
There seems to be a lot of threads on this over the last week popping up all over the forums.
Askaboutmoney.com has one very similar to this.
Not only accidental landlords, but experienced landlords all bailing out.
I think we have reached tipping point and most landlords have now decided that too much is too much, after the last round of interviews that Murphy has done.
I guess many were willing to give it a go, but just give up now.
Weel the minister got what he wanted. Landlords driven out of the market. So now the question is, how many will stay?
Not many I think. I know plenty who say if Airbnb isn't an option they are happy to just leave it, until the minister cops on.
Time for a carrot and a big one at that minister. Your world is crumbling and you cant even see it, or just don't care because some other idiot will be in the job next month and you can wash your hands of your idiocy just like Simon Coveny did before you. Both of you are solely responsible for the housing crisis.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Latest tactic mooted by Government of trying to limit AirBnB to spare rooms in family homes also likely unconstitutional.
How so?0 -
How so?
Property rights.
Yes, I know they can be limited for the common good, but this must be justified and, in my view, an arguable case can be made against such linitations as suggested by the Minister
Limiting the right to use AirBnB to rooms in family houses, as distinct to other houses seems to have more parallells with contraceptives for married couples period than logical property and asset management.
At a minimum a case would expose such regulations to proper cause and impact analysis.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Property rights.
Yes, I know they can be limited for the common good, but this must be justified and, in my view, an arguable case can be made against such linitations as suggested by the Minister
Limiting the right to use AirBnB to rooms in family houses, as distinct to other houses seems to have more parallells with contraceptives for married couples period than logical property and asset management.
At a minimum a case would expose such regulations to proper cause and impact analysis.
If anyone takes a case they can only do so on the basis of how the regulations affect them personally. Unless there is an Article 26 referral there won't be a hypothetical argument entertained. There is no constitutional problem if registration is insisted on, if planning permission for short lets is required and if a minimum rental period for normal lettings is required. If that was done ansd there was serious enforcement, airbnb would diminish rapidly.0 -
I have a nice apartment in a very desirable area that will rent in a heartbeat.
I haven't raised the rent since 2008, and property was last rented at 40% below market rate. I've never been interested in getting the most rent possible.
Last tenant just abandoned the property without notice owing 4 months rent and has left the place in such a state that the kitchen and bathroom had to be entirely torn out and rebuilt from the studs out.
Living room floor so damaged it has to be replaced.
Kitchen appliances destroyed or missing.
Entire apartment needs to be completely repainted.
With the unpaid rent and repairs I'm out of pocket approx 17k euro, and no hope of reimbursement.
He had been there for 3 years with relatively few issues.
Place will be refurbed by end of September and is going on Air BnB, where 120 days a year occupancy will net me more than renting.
If the government restricts short term rentals then I'll just keep it empty and use it as a holiday home.
I'm sure I'm like many others who are sick of having zero property rights over their own property.
Are you pursuing this tenant through the available legal remedies? If not, why not?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »AirBiB is thriving in Dublin because of;
1. Lack of affordable hotel beds
2. Landlord unfriendly legal environment.
Its being pushed and pulled in the same direction. Unless these two factors are fixed, trying to stop AirBnB by taxation/regulation will be like trying to hold back the tide.
Latest tactic mooted by Government of trying to limit AirBnB to spare rooms in family homes also likely unconstitutional.
Property rights are not unlimited and absolute, as per the constitution.
Dublin will be far from the first city to aggressively curtail airbnb / short term letting and it will most certainly not be the last. These moves will get the votes to start with. And proper investment in enforcement will get the votes the next time. I would say the tide is going the opposite way.0 -
Advertisement
-
LuckyLloyd wrote:Are you pursuing this tenant through the available legal remedies? If not, why not?
Tennant has vanashed. You can't bring someone to justice if you don't know where they are
I'd imagine Tennant fled just after op started proceedings with RTB0 -
LotharIngum wrote: »There seems to be a lot of threads on this over the last week popping up all over the forums.
Askaboutmoney.com has one very similar to this.
Not only accidental landlords, but experienced landlords all bailing out.
I think we have reached tipping point and most landlords have now decided that too much is too much, after the last round of interviews that Murphy has done.
I guess many were willing to give it a go, but just give up now.
Weel the minister got what he wanted. Landlords driven out of the market. So now the question is, how many will stay?
Not many I think. I know plenty who say if Airbnb isn't an option they are happy to just leave it, until the minister cops on.
Time for a carrot and a big one at that minister. Your world is crumbling and you cant even see it, or just don't care because some other idiot will be in the job next month and you can wash your hands of your idiocy just like Simon Coveny did before you. Both of you are solely responsible for the housing crisis.
I agree. Property values have recovered quite a lot over the last number of years and some of the commentary seems to suggest that most of the capital gains have already happened. With nothing on the horizon to suggest its going to be a worthwhile return on investment given the risks, I reckon there is a steady stream of LLs heading for the exits. Ask any real estate agent what proportion of the properties they are selling are ex-rentals.0 -
Even if you get a judgement enforcing it is a different story entirely.0
-
If they refuse, forcing them out gets them money for illegal eviction, and they're allowed back into the house. And they can stay until a sheriff evicts them. Even with a PTRB order, you cannot do it yourself.vectorvictor wrote: »You could just follow the law which would have them out in 42 days?
I laugh when I read this. Here in Toronto, you can rent entire condo's on AirBnB. Entire houses. Whatever.listermint wrote: »I hope the government insure that Airbnb laws are pushed like Toronto's.
If the deposit escrow comes into play, expect deposits of 2 months rent.listermint wrote: »100% they need to look after landlords which is why I think thinks such as deposit escrow are needed for both sides. And a clear and true means and methods to get rid of problem tenants.
Such as a commercial lease? Most landlords would welcome the rights of a commercial landlord, especially for evicting due to non-payment of rent.Rental income is no different from income earned by working overtime or any other money earning enterprise.
There already is. No complaints. Have been here for 17 months.listermint wrote: »Would you like me to open a regular Airbnb listing next door to yours ?
A professional landlord will charge max rent, furnish the apartment with Ikea's finest, and charge the tenant for anything that breaks. They'll also not care if you can't pay your rent because you're sick, etc, and will make you homeless without a 2nd thought.What is an "amateur landlord"? As opposed to a professional one.
There is 52 weeks in the year. At 90 days, that's nearly every weekend. I'm sure many will make the same amount of money.They are now starting to regulate Airbnb and limit the amount of nights per year
Regarding the 1st point; are we talking about only the popular ones, such as AirBnB, or all of them? And if they say no, and are operated from abroad, how can the government stop them?Mandatory licensing/registration of booking platforms.
Mandatory registration of properties being made available for short term lettings.
Mandatory reporting of nights booked by each of the booking platforms.
If registered to company abroad, the landlord probably won't bother with the registration.
As per the above; why bother?
They won't do this, as it will guarantee the scumbags be homeless.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »1. A proper credit rating system which can be checked by LL/Agencies with negative effects on a tenantrs credit should they stop paying the rent/trash the place.
They won't do this, as the Everything Free Brigade will bring up the 800 years of english occupation sh|te; in short, political suicide.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »2. The ability to evict within 90 days for non payment of rent with a corasponding, First & Last Month's rent and security deposit system (of one month).
As above, the Everything Free Brigade will stop any proper eviction process from happening.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »3. The ability to evict for antisocial behaviour/trashing the place within 14/30 days - although the former exisits good luck in enforceing it.
I honestly don't know why they don't do this.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »4. HAP to be brought in line with the way rent is paid - in advance - and paid in full from the local authority. Not this mishmash of part from the tenant. This would also hamper top-ups.
There's more chance of a flat rate coming in, tbh.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »5. The ability to charge market rent to new tenants. Stiff penalties for LL's the evict to do this.
See post about evicting.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »6. The ability to sell property and prevent tenantrs from overholding unless a lease with no break clause is in place.
They have this for 10 year HAP leases, I think?Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »7. Tax breaks for longer term leases with no break clauses.
If they did the above to HAP, you'd have a lot more landlords signing up for HAP.Deleted User wrote: »Under-write/Guarantee all rentals- take the risk away from the landlords and on to themselves. Govt keep paying rent, even when there's an issue with the tenant.
Increase taxes on rental properties slightly considering government is taking on the risk.
Insist on good minimum standards of condition of the building- inspection before each rental- if property is destroyed by tenant, criminal proceedings.
Provided, or course, that they pay up front, and not in arrears.
Ah yes, business rates, but not business rights?listermint wrote: »nor Willing to get planning permission and pay business rates for their rental.
You're going from at least 4 people in the house to maybe 2.You're not destroying the house, so presumably someone will live in it when you sell, either as a owner or tenant.
The Irish government would then sell them off to the tenants for less than half of what it cost to build them within the next ten years.Greentopia wrote: »Personally if I was Housing Minister I'd invest massively in social housing like Sweden did with the Million Programme in the 1960s and 70s where they constructed one million social homes-apartments and houses, in 10 years.
I wonder will it be as useless as the RTB?I suggested it will be difficult for CoCo's to regulate Airbnb properties and it will be difficult to prevent property owners from renting their properties for more than a limited number of nights.
I'd call that a "bad" landlord.A landlord who thinks he/she just has to place an ad, get a tenant and watch the money roll in.
Most of them will wait a bit, to see what happens. I can't see any more than a couple of hundred returning to the market, if even that.All the more reason it's likely to happen. Great soundbites:
Look electorate, we're clamping down on those landlords again to stop them making excessive profits from holiday rentals. As a result X,XXX properties have been returned to the residential market.
And they'll increase their rents drastically if they do. If they can't, they won't return to the market.
It can be, but there are agencies out there who will do the work for you.Is Air BnB not a lot of work?
Without knowing where they are, the OP can't.LuckyLloyd wrote: »Are you pursuing this tenant through the available legal remedies? If not, why not?
Also, if the tenant is now on SW, the OP won't see any money.0 -
Tennant has vanashed. You can't bring someone to justice if you don't know where they are
I'd imagine Tennant fled just after op started proceedings with RTB
Why didn't OP undertake regular inspections of the accomodation?
The majority of tenants will not stay if they don't pay rent. It would be very very rare I'd think. <SNIPPED>
That's just one of the risks of offering a service.
A taxi man takes a risk people get sick in their car.
A plant hire takes a risk when they rent out their equipment.
And it's just as easy to get away with damages there as it is renting.0 -
Pussyhands wrote: »Why didn't OP undertake regular inspections of the accomodation?
The majority of tenants will not stay if they don't pay rent. It would be very very rare I'd think. <SNIPPED>.
That's just one of the risks of offering a service.
A taxi man takes a risk people get sick in their car.
A plant hire takes a risk when they rent out their equipment.
And it's just as easy to get away with damages there as it is renting.
I don't mean any disrespect to OP but it just wasn't run properly
If I went to a bank looking for a buy to let mortgage & showed my business model was to charge 40 percent less than market value I either wouldn't get the loan or they would dramatically reduce the amount they are willing to loan. It just doesn't make sense. In a business the extra rent that OP didn't charge would go to cover losses that he now has. Every business has to allow money for slippages. This can be shop lifting from a shop or a taxi fare doing a runner up a lane way. This is very basic business stuff.
OP will do well with Airbnb but only if he charges full market value. I'm betting it wont be 40 percent below. It will be inspected (& cleaned) after each visit.0 -
The government are still trying to divert attention to the landlords. The issue is with government not the landlords.0
-
You're going from at least 4 people in the house to maybe 2.
By that logic you'd be saying that anyone with a spare room is contributing to the housing crisis - which is of course nonsense.
This forum can be totally tiresome - you have a landlord grouping who seem to think they're hard done by if the rent doesn't cover the mortgage and maintenance happily omitting that the asset itself has value and is appreciating (at the moment - and is the long term trend). Seemingly it's their right to have an €xxxk asset after 15-20 years that they effectively only acted as a middleman passing cash from tenant to bank and invested little or no money generated outside of that property into it. The people in the property of course are an inconvenience to be merely tolerated with, and the state criminal for taxing the rental income. We now are treated to these same landlords, who are only interested in profit - acting like they are martyrs keeping the rental crisis from getting worse but it's government/regulation mowing down landlords one soldier at a time. Total nonsense.
To the OP, if you want to do Airbnb, off you go. Nothing stopping you. Not sure why you posted here tbh apart from having a rant perhaps? We're not going to change your mind that's for sure. Airbnb can return more cash at the cost of more time inputted. Only you can decide if it's worth it.
If I have an asset that is worth several hundred k and it's generating enough income which has to be a large proportion of the cost of finance and I'm landed with a 10k bill, I'll probably be upset... for like 5mins. Because I'll remember realising this risk has only dented my outsize return by a couple of percent.0 -
I wonder can they be compelled to do this. Maybe they will be happy to do this.
They already provide revenue with landlords details and how much they get paid. I think revenue like Airbnb. All payments are reported to them. All payments are made via bank transfer (I believe). There is no or little chance of cash in hand. It's like a dream come true for revenue.
Well that’s not entirely the case, repeat business, word of mouth business and people staying on extra days etc do have the potential for some cash in hand. It’s not going to be a major share but there is no doubt some of it around.
For example I’ve stayed in different apartments, B&Bs etc abroad booked through sites (not Airbnb) and have often been asked to “call us up if you ever want to stay again rather than book through the site”.....Greentopia wrote: »I'm sure many LLs would try to comfort themselves by thinking it doesn't factor into it (not speculating about you), but it stands to reason if a tenant is treated well and asked to pay reasonable rent in line more with the cost of living rather than what blind followers of what 'the market' dictates, that most will have more goodwill and respect for their LL than if they are getting gouged every month on rents they can't afford and which leaves them struggling.
And yes of course there are certain types out there who will regardless but I wasn't arguing against that. That's where the point I've made several times comes in-strict vetting and a tenant with proven track record before you accept them.
I don’t really know what basis you think high rents would result in a tenant having more chance of trashing a place it would be very much the other way around imo. People paying higher rents and at the higher end of the market would have much less chance of being a rouge tenant as it would come back to bite them much more.
Leaving that aside you vet the tenant and if it’s done properly you will not rent to someone who will struggle to pay the rent as this would make no sense therefore you don’t end up with someone struggling to pay the rent every month.Pussyhands wrote: »
A taxi man takes a risk people get sick in their car.
A plant hire takes a risk when they rent out their equipment.
And it's just as easy to get away with damages there as it is renting.
Not really, a taxi can and will drive you to the Garda station unless you pay a soiling charge and a plant hire business can keep your credit card details and just take any money for damage same as a car hire company would.0 -
Mod Note
Suggestions amounting to illegal eviction are not welcome in A & P. Please don't make them.0 -
Advertisement
-
By that logic you'd be saying that anyone with a spare room is contributing to the housing crisis - which is of course nonsense.
This forum can be totally tiresome - you have a landlord grouping who seem to think they're hard done by if the rent doesn't cover the mortgage and maintenance happily omitting that the asset itself has value and is appreciating (at the moment - and is the long term trend). Seemingly it's their right to have an €xxxk asset after 15-20 years that they effectively only acted as a middleman passing cash from tenant to bank and invested little or no money generated outside of that property into it. The people in the property of course are an inconvenience to be merely tolerated with, and the state criminal for taxing the rental income. We now are treated to these same landlords, who are only interested in profit - acting like they are martyrs keeping the rental crisis from getting worse but it's government/regulation mowing down landlords one soldier at a time. Total nonsense.
To the OP, if you want to do Airbnb, off you go. Nothing stopping you. Not sure why you posted here tbh apart from having a rant perhaps? We're not going to change your mind that's for sure. Airbnb can return more cash at the cost of more time inputted. Only you can decide if it's worth it.
If I have an asset that is worth several hundred k and it's generating enough income which has to be a large proportion of the cost of finance and I'm landed with a 10k bill, I'll probably be upset... for like 5mins. Because I'll remember realising this risk has only dented my outsize return by a couple of percent.
You are missing a very simple, yet important point. Mortgage payments are independent of whether an asset is appreciating or depreciating, the bank will still want the owner to make repayments so obviously it is in the owners best interest to have an income in excess of repayments.
The people in the property are not an inconvenience, they are receiving a service for which they pay. That does not entitle them to take advantage of that service and damage the property.
I don't get the sense that the op is unhappy with the risk associated with buying an asset, I do get the sense that he is unhappy that he is €17k out of pocket due to the actions of a tenant. And that like many a landlord, it's not worth the risk anymore to rent longterm when short term lets have less risk and more income.0 -
You are missing a very simple, yet important point. Mortgage payments are independent of whether an asset is appreciating or depreciating, the bank will still want the owner to make repayments so obviously it is in the owners best interest to have an income in excess of repayments.
The people in the property are not an inconvenience, they are receiving a service for which they pay. That does not entitle them to take advantage of that service and damage the property.
I don't get the sense that the op is unhappy with the risk associated with buying an asset, I do get the sense that he is unhappy that he is €17k out of pocket due to the actions of a tenant. And that like many a landlord, it's not worth the risk anymore to rent longterm when short term lets have less risk and more income.
Indeed they are. That said, property values would have to totally tank (beyond what they did in 2008-2010) for someone not to be able to return a positive even after topping up the mortgage.
Being able to have the cash on hand to make this top up payment a risk of buy to let property investing. Investing, no matter what your asset class has risk and you need to be comfortable with it.
Otherwise get out of the kitchen.0 -
Indeed they are. That said, property values would have to totally tank (beyond what they did in 2008-2010) for someone not to be able to return a positive even after topping up the mortgage.
Being able to have the cash on hand to make this top up payment a risk of buy to let property investing. Investing, no matter what your asset class has risk and you need to be comfortable with it.
Otherwise get out of the kitchen.
Have you a mortgage?
If the price of your asset goes up or down during the lifetime of your mortgage, the repayments will still depend on the amount borrowed, the duration of the loan and the interest rate. Repayments do not depend on whether your house has gone up in value over the last year.
Many owners bought during the last property boom and even with the increase in house prices, they may still be in negative equity. No one who has owned a property over the last 10 years needs a lecture from you about risk, they have been making repayments during the worst recession in the state's history.
And we are all getting out of the kitchen, best to leave long term rentals to corporates where you most definitely will pay the highest rent possible.
We amateurs will stick to the more lucrative, less risky short term lets.0 -
Newsflash: nobody cares about private landlords. Why should they?
The fact that private individuals can't make a quick buck by buying and leasing out property just doesn't matter. Landlords do not build houses. They do not create accommodation. They are not a solution to any problem.
For all sorts of valid reasons very, very few people in Ireland want to be housed by a private landlord. Those who are, are only in that situation due to a lack of choice.
I'm not saying that private landlords are bad people, or that they must be driven out of business. I am saying that the public and government don't care about them and have no reason to care about them. The idea that private landlords somehow need to be supported so that being a landlord is some sort of viable career choice is laughable.0 -
Have you a mortgage?
If the price of your asset goes up or down during the lifetime of your mortgage, the repayments will still depend on the amount borrowed, the duration of the loan and the interest rate. Repayments do not depend on whether your house has gone up in value over the last year.
Many owners bought during the last property boom and even with the increase in house prices, they may still be in negative equity. No one who has owned a property over the last 10 years needs a lecture from you about risk, they have been making repayments during the worst recession in the state's history.
And we are all getting out of the kitchen, best to leave long term rentals to corporates where you most definitely will pay the highest rent possible.
We will just park interest and deposits as they complicate the calculation but the idea can be understood without
I buy a house for 200k and mortgage for the full amount. Rent covers mortgage initially. However market crash happens and I have to top up mortgage by 50%. By end of term I've put 100k of my own in and 100k of rental income in. House is now worth 125k. Wow. Healthy 25% return.
Not the 200k payday I expected at the start.
Landlords seemingly expect that over the course of a mortgage term that risks will not realise themselves. It's utterly daft and shoes that these people do not have the mindset or stomach for investing. So yes they should get out.
If we are all renting from REITs, then the market with regulation will set the rate, just like now.
The only difference is I won't be funding some retired guards holiday to marbella.0 -
Tennant has vanashed. You can't bring someone to justice if you don't know where they are
Really? Is this how it works? I find it hard to believe that somebody can rent a house, trash it and just walk away. Why does not a landlord sue the tenant for damages? Was there a contract? Did the tenant put a fake name on it? If not, then what are you talking about by saying "tenant has vanished"?
Second point. A tenant may not be in a position to pay any damages due to being broke. That is why there is a thing called a "landlord insurance". If you are involved in a business, get a professional insurance. If the OP has no insurance, then it is his own responsibility for taking the risk.0 -
By that logic you'd be saying that anyone with a spare room is contributing to the housing crisis - which is of course nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? I used to rent a 2 bedroom apartment on my own. If I sublet the second room would that not have alleviated the housing crisis (very slightly). Are thing that alleviate the crisis not the inverse of things contributing to the crisis?0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Newsflash: nobody cares about private landlords. Why should they?
The fact that private individuals can't make a quick buck by buying and leasing out property just doesn't matter. Landlords do not build houses. They do not create accommodation. They are not a solution to any problem.
For all sorts of valid reasons very, very few people in Ireland want to be housed by a private landlord. Those who are, are only in that situation due to a lack of choice.
I'm not saying that private landlords are bad people, or that they must be driven out of business. I am saying that the public and government don't care about them and have no reason to care about them. The idea that private landlords somehow need to be supported so that being a landlord is some sort of viable career choice is laughable.
You are absolutely 100% correct. Private landlords do not, nor should not receive state support for speculating on an asset. But nor should the state interfere with the market in which the property owner operates and provides a service. The RTB as been a disaster and RPZ legislation has resulted in landlords getting out of the kitchen/fleeing the market, effectively exacerbating the rental problem. So the state should keep their noses out of a free market and instead focus on either building more houses or incentivising it so that others will build.0 -
We will just park interest and deposits as they complicate the calculation but the idea can be understood without
I buy a house for 200k and mortgage for the full amount. Rent covers mortgage initially. However market crash happens and I have to top up mortgage by 50%. By end of term I've put 100k of my own in and 100k of rental income in. House is now worth 125k. Wow. Healthy 25% return.
Not the 200k payday I expected at the start.
Landlords seemingly expect that over the course of a mortgage term that risks will not realise themselves. It's utterly daft and shoes that these people do not have the mindset or stomach for investing. So yes they should get out.
If we are all renting from REITs, then the market with regulation will set the rate, just like now.
The only difference is I won't be funding some retired guards holiday to marbella.
Dear God, you could actually be the only person on the planet who sees a €75k loss as a €25k "healthy return". Leaving aside you have ignored interest on the mortgage, have you forgotten that tax is due on rental income.
When massive swathes of properties are owned by REITS, their properties will be the market, REITS will set the rent. And instead, you will be boosting the Gaurds pension fund.0 -
Advertisement
-
You are absolutely 100% correct. Private landlords do not, nor should not receive state support for speculating on an asset. But nor should the state interfere with the market in which the property owner operates and provides a service. The RTB as been a disaster and RPZ legislation has resulted in landlords getting out of the kitchen/fleeing the market, effectively exacerbating the rental problem. So the state should keep their noses out of a free market and instead focus on either building more houses or incentivising it so that others will build.
I don't agree that the rental sector should be a free market.
If you can't accept it then sell - it's really that simple.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement