nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

steddyeddy

I think some landlords in Ireland have a tendency to play the poor mouth. In receipt of the biggest rents in the history of the state, yet they're very vocal about how they're mistreated by the government ect. I get that there needs to be more protection against bad tenants but anyone who has rented has encountered their own share of dodgy landlords too.

I think it grates on people that they're moaning about life during a housing crisis which ultimately benefits them and makes it harder for tenants even on a decent wage. I lived and rented in other countries and currently live in the UK and I have to say the standard of service is far higher in other places. One thing that Irish landlords never seemed to get is the fact that once they rent a property out it's someone else's residence. You don't get to turn up unannounced and walk around.

So to sum up the cool story bro I think that Irish landlords really shouldn't feel like the victims in the housing crisis. Yes some things could work better but as a group they could be doing a lot worse.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

engiweirdo

Laois_Man wrote: »

How exactly is someone whose house is worth €100,000 less than the purchase price going to “cut losses” if they are an accidental landlord? Do you think the bank is gonna take that €100,000 loss out of the goodness of their hearts?

Tough. You pay your money you take your chances. No entitlement to profit or break even on an investment.

Zebra3

Accidental landlord.

That's a new one to me.

Laois_Man

engiweirdo wrote: »

Tough. You pay your money you take your chances. No entitlement to profit or break even on an investment.

There you go again with “investment”

I’m not responding to you again until to at least educate yourself on the term “accidental landlord” and how they are people who bought a home, not an investment

Laois_Man

Zebra3 wrote: »

Accidental landlord.

That's a new one to me.

Have you been under a rock?

Laois_Man

gaius c wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer subsidise your accidental/bad investment?

Did somebody say anything about handing out subsidy’s?

fly_agaric

Laois_Man wrote: »

Have you been under a rock?

Well I suppose you could be an "accidental landlord" if you inherit a property or something (while already having somewhere to live).
We all have our crosses to bear in this world I suppose.

...Jesus Christ is nothing on Irish Landlords and the sufferings they endure for the Irish people.:pac:

Austria!

It's extremely tough on landlords who end up with problem tenants, the deck is completely stacked against them. Thousands in damages and unpaid rent.

The other grievance is that landlords don't get any consideration for the time they put into being a landlord. You don't get any expenses for your labour, or let's say your fuel if you had to drive to your property etc.

Samuel T. Cogley

As a LL I'd be more than happy with reasonable rents (around half of what they are now), the tax breaks any business is entitled too such as tax relief on loan interest and the ability not to have a deadbeat tenant not only steal from me for a year or more, but also then trash the place and there be absolutely nothing I can do about it.

fly_agaric

Austria! wrote: »

The other grievance is that landlords don't get any consideration for the time they put into being a landlord. You don't get any expenses for your labour, or let's say your fuel if you had to drive to your property etc.

So the expenses on the property, the tax depreciation etc are not enough.

You'd also want literal "rentiers" to get all the kinds of expenses someone receives who is working at a trade or profession or running a business.:eek:

Samuel T. Cogley

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Sorry most landlords are gangsters, speaking from vast experience here.

It's a business for them, it's not done out of the kindness of their heart.

It's a virtual goldmine for them. Have you ever met a poor landlord? I haven't.

You've not met the majority of LL's then. The vast majority own less than two properties and many do it as a pension.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

No sympathy for landlords either who let a place out only to have tenants fall back on their rent or wreck the place. Ask for a reference, most people who are decent have a work, or at the very least character reference, then cross reference that reference. That's your responsibility.

The only way to cross reference that a tenant has been paying rent is to request bank statements. While it's currently possible to do, as is taking more than one month's security deposit there is legislation being contemplated to stop that.

Electric Sheep

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It doesn't seem to protect tenants very well either, considering (a) what we're currently paying, and (b) the absence of security of tenure. I live in dread of getting a phone call from my landlord, saying he's returning to Ireland and wants his apartment back. We really need a better system - one that makes it easier to kick someone out for not paying their rent, but also makes it impossible to kick someone out if they are paying their rent, abiding by the tenancy agreement, etc.

The selling the house line is often used by landlords to get the tenant to vacate. Often times not even intending to sell the house.

I woyld really like to see laws put in place that would allow for prosecution of landlords who try this crap.

Samuel T. Cogley

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I woyld really like to see laws put in place that would allow for prosecution of landlords who try this crap.

There already are and they are enforced.

smurgen

Austria! wrote: »

It's extremely tough on landlords who end up with problem tenants, the deck is completely stacked against them. Thousands in damages and unpaid rent.

The other grievance is that landlords don't get any consideration for the time they put into being a landlord. You don't get any expenses for your labour, or let's say your fuel if you had to drive to your property etc.

They seemed to survive grand during the bad times and made it even earning modest rents.now in the boom times they're creaming it earning more than even and keep threatening to vote with their feet and sell up.they'll never admit how good they have it.it's like farmers,they'll only ever tell you how bad they have it.it's like if they tell the truth for one second all those government subsidies will dry up.

engiweirdo

Laois_Man wrote: »

There you go again with “investment”

I’m not responding to you again until to at least educate yourself on the term “accidental landlord” and how they are people who bought a home, not an investment

I accidentally bought an overpriced house, couldnt afford the repayments and rather than admit defeat and return the property to the market closer to its true value, I found some other shmuck to cover the mortgage. Poor accidental me.

That about the size of it?

[Deleted User]

theres reasonable landlords and reasonable tenants

you wont hear much about either set on boards!

a lot of landlords have a major blindspot ime in that they do expect to be in pocket over the entire term of a mortgage. if the rent doesnt cover their monthly outgoings they resent any money extra they have to put in to keep their end of maintenance etc, ignoring that theyll own the gaff outright at the end of the arrangement.

but id agree that the enforcement against problem tenants is ridiculously weak and ineffective.

Samuel T. Cogley

smurgen wrote: »

They seemed to survive grand during the bad times and made it even earning modest rents.now in the boom times they're creaming it earning more than even and keep threatening to vote with their feet and sell up.they'll never admit how good they have it.it's like farmers,they'll only ever tell you how bad they have it.it's like if they tell the truth for one second all those government subsidies will dry up.

During the 'bad times' rents were modest and there was the ability to get rid of bad tenants. Rental numbers remained relatively stable.

Now there are huge profits to be made, but the risk is you'll be ruined by one bad tenant, LL's are exiting the market.

The game now is rigged in favour of large REITs. You'd have to have your head examined if you want to become a one/two off LL now. Much better investing in a REIT that can absorb one or two bad tenants and charge eye watering rents becuase there's a gym in the basement.

Church on Tuesday

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You've not met the majority of LL's then. The vast majority own less than two properties and many do it as a pension.

The only way to cross reference that a tenant has been paying rent is to request bank statements. While it's currently possible to do, as is taking more than one month's security deposit there is legislation being contemplated to stop that.

I'm a 31 year old man, I've met plenty of them.

That's two properties more than most folk.

Most landlords deal only cash in hand, you might be waiting for bank statements.

riemann

Zebra3 wrote: »

Accidental landlord.

That's a new one to me.

It is used to describe a poor unfortunate soul who inherited a property suddenly, without warning.

The shock of this sudden increase in capital wealth usually renders said person paralysed to the extent they are unable to ring an estate agent (a mythical creature who only appears on the seventh full moon of a leap year, if its cloudy).

While coping with this noose around their neck that is an extra property, they are forced to rent it out against their will. It is important to note that any rent charged is accidental.

As an accidental landlord they are also not required to maintain the property or keep all the usual utilities in working order. Ceiling falls in? Tough luck mate, your down on their luck host is still coming to terms with the whole situation and just left on a month long holiday for a relaxing break in Las Vegas.

castie

riemann wrote: »

Zebra3 wrote: »

Accidental landlord.

That's a new one to me.

It is used to describe a poor unfortunate soul who inherited a property suddenly, without warning.

The shock of this sudden increase in capital wealth usually renders said person paralysed to the extent they are unable to ring an estate agent (a mythical creature who only appears on the seventh full moon of a leap year, if its cloudy).

While coping with this noose around their neck that is an extra property, they are forced to rent it out against their will. It is important to note that any rent charged is accidental.

As an accidental landlord they are also not required to maintain the property or keep all the usual utilities in working order. Ceiling falls in? Tough luck mate, your down on their luck host is still coming to terms with the whole situation and just left on a month long holiday for a relaxing break in Las Vegas.

Amazing how wrong someone can be.

A person who bought at the peak and then ended up in a situation where they could no longer afford the mortgage. (Maybe they lost their job?)

They then move out and rent it to someone else to cover the mortgage payments and downsize themselves. ( Sometimes still paying something towards the mortgage where the rent won't fully cover it )

They cant sell due to negative equity so they are stuck.

beauf

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

... they should find a more productive way of earning a living.

Why not let them do airbnb and let someone else provide long term rentals then.

beauf

LL are generally pointing out the flaws in the system. But rather than trying to understand that people just hear what they want to hear.

Just don't use them if it bothers you that much. Use the govt provided housing instead.

Laois_Man

fly_agaric wrote: »

Well I suppose you could be an "accidental landlord" if you inherit a property or something (while already having somewhere to live).
We all have our crosses to bear in this world I suppose.

...Jesus Christ is nothing on Irish Landlords and the sufferings they endure for the Irish people.:pac:

You're on the internet FFS. Google it! There's 21,500 hits on the term!

engiweirdo wrote: »

I accidentally bought an overpriced house, couldnt afford the repayments and rather than admit defeat and return the property to the market closer to its true value, I found some other shmuck to cover the mortgage. Poor accidental me.

That about the size of it?

No! Try - couldn't return the house to the market "close to its true value" because the bank don't let you sell a property that's "close to its true value" - and you also must have missed the bit where property lost 60% of its value when comparing peak versus the lowest point - and you also missed the part where at that time, there wasn't a fillers hope of a rental income (even before tax charges) covering the mortgage.

And no, I am not a landlord....thank ****!

riemann

castie wrote: »

Amazing how wrong someone can be.

If you're still in negative equity at this stage, you must be one poor judge of property.

It's a meaningless made up term, an d a pathetic attempt to justify greed.

hatrickpatrick

Personally I oppose the very concept of for-profit land management, just like I oppose the concept of for-profit provision of water, for-profit healthcare, for-profit banking, etc. Things which are vital to the functioning of society should be run in a way which benefits society as a whole. The "non-residential property as an asset" model allows land to be used in a way which harms society as a whole, if the owner can make more profit from using it in that manner.

Land is and should be considered a national resource, not a commodity. The provision of housing is something which as a society we should be ensuring costs the end-user the absolute bare minimum required to provide it, and not a cent more.

Roger_007

riemann wrote: »

If you're still in negative equity at this stage, you must be one poor judge of property.

It's a meaningless made up term, an d a pathetic attempt to justify greed.

'Landlord' is also a meaningless term in the context of today's rental market. It harks back to the time when all the agricultural land was owned by big aristocratic landowners and rented or leased out to farmers.
I'm not sure why the term is still used.

Always Tired

I've rented in Ireland the past 12 years, 6 different landlords. Every single one of them were awful, every single one at some point breached the regulations put into law in the residential tenancy act, and in most cases, weren't aware/didn't care if there was such laws.

i took one to prtb because, after giving me the boot so they could sell up, they refused to give me the notice period i was entitled to under part 4, which i needed in order to work enough weeks to get the money for a new deposit and to have the time to get something suitable. they literally thought they could put me out with two weeks notice.

came home one day and they had changed the locks with my possessions inside.

they were eventually fined four figures by the prtb. thought he would ever pay it but the day of the deadline i got a check. even sweeter, when they went to sell up they couldn't because of all the things i had asked to be fixed and got fobbed off about, like the mold and damp (you can basically rent a house in any condition now, but not sell one, it's so infuriating as a tenant. and when they can't be bothered to give their places a lick of paint, i've often just done it myself. but then you have to ask them first! to do what they should be doing!).

if you come across a real cowboy, don't think it's a lost cause to go to prtb. don't let them away with stuff, like the illegal rent hikes which are epidemic in Dublin right now.

Zebra3

castie wrote: »

Amazing how wrong someone can be.

A person who bought at the peak and then ended up in a situation where they could no longer afford the mortgage. (Maybe they lost their job?)

They then move out and rent it to someone else to cover the mortgage payments and downsize themselves. ( Sometimes still paying something towards the mortgage where the rent won't fully cover it )

They cant sell due to negative equity so they are stuck.

Sell and declare bankruptcy.

Nope, they’d rather be a landlord.

Graces7

I bless the day that after 14 years of private renting I moved into a council property.. never again would i trust a landlord here.

Samuel T. Cogley

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I'm a 31 year old man, I've met plenty of them.

That's two properties more than most folk.

Most landlords deal only cash in hand, you might be waiting for bank statements.

For whatever reason you've been dealing with slumlords. The vast majority of LL's are properly registered and deal with EFT. The alternative is to give up on various tax allowances and run the risk of being reported to the RTB.

marieholmfan

Pkiernan wrote: »

Roddy Doyle eat your heart out...

My last tenants point of view cost me 17000.

prove it