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

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

Patently not true. I did not deserve most of my former landlords and they did not deserve a good tenant like myself

Fool me once shame on you
Fool me twice shame on me.
Is there something about you that says "here comes a sucker"

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Well I'm not a dirtbird I like to think I'm a respectable individual.

Been hoodwinked plenty of times by so called "good" landlords though.

Life's a bitch and then you die

steddyeddy wrote: »

Floppybits wrote: »

And the counter to that is the Left seem to think because Rents are so high that ALL LLs are making huge profits, which leads to threads like this, when the reality of the situation is that the a of LLs are barely making anything and rent (big as it maybe) is just covering the costs of the property.

Actually I'd say most people think the rents are high because the supply means that those with the assets can charge more.

I would disagree with that.  A few Landlords are probably creaming it but most I would say are charging rents to cover the costs of property.  I have a property and I haven't put the rent up and I wont as what I am getting is covering the costs and that is all I care about.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Of course you have to live somewhere. Most LLs are one or two property people. They either live in their main residence and take on a lodger or rent their second house to renters.

I think taking in a Lodger is the best way to make a bit of money on this
AFAIK you can get around 5 or 6 hundred a month and not pay tax so long as you live there too?

steddyeddy wrote: »

And I agree that in some cases not much profit is made. However if they're buying a house as a primary residence hoping to make a huge profit well then that's not a great business move is it? Some LLs seem to think they're owed a huge profit. As a group of business owners they seem the most vocal about profits.

I'd say for most landlords who found themselves accidental landlords on properties with mortgages drawn down over the last 10 are making sweet fu*k all

If you want to make money on it, you need to have no mortgage overhead, it's that simple.
This is where I get what you're saying about getting to keep the property at the end, as it's only at that point it starts making money, but the thing is most mortgages are 30/35 years, therefore most people will have retired or will be very close to retirement age at that point, so they still aren't making huge amounts of money (unless they've a whopper pension, but hardly anyone has an amazing pension anymore)

It's their kids that will make the money though, they'll inherit 2 properties in their mid 50's.
But even then, you're in your mid 50's and probably comfortable enough. It'd be easier to just sell the properties than have the hassle of renting them

My point is it's not the cash cow everyone thinks it is.

If I ever found myself in situation that I inherit a property that I don't intend to live in, I'll be selling it.

Edgware wrote: »

Life's a bitch and then you die[/QUO


Take your trolling elsewhere good lad.

I suggest the dole bashing threads plenty of your sort there.

Floppybits wrote: »

I think you have it good, rent at under 1k.  Not many places you would get that.

I'm sharing and it's for a room

Floppybits wrote: »

The rent on my apartment is 50 euro more.

How many rooms how many you sharing with

Deleted User wrote: »

smdh at the landlords expecting "profit" while rent covers their mortgage

lads, its been said multiple times on the thread- if you want to calculate annual "profit" like this (nb you shouldnt, it's ridiculous) then by all means lash in the increased value of the property over the year as well.

theres two things going on- the various costs of renting and the equity in the property. landlords are in the business of meeting the former to gain the rewards of the latter.

if it were to be run like a business (nb dont do this either it too is kind of ridiculous) then set rent vs costs and let that be yr profit/loss

you can have it one way or the other but you cant credibly beg sympathy by trying to have it both ways

Well in that case, they should lash in the decreased value of the property over the last 10-years into tax reliefs too!

You can't credibly try to have it both ways!

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Floppybits wrote: »

The rent on my apartment is 50 euro more.

How many rooms how many you sharing with

Thats 1k for the apartment.

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.

Post of the thread. So short yet nails our key problems.

Wish politicians would read.

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.

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.

I pray to God that you suffer the financial harm that some tenants have inflicted on landlords.

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Interesting.....I have to admit this is exactly the type of presumptions, negative attitude that makes me glad we've not got our property out to rent.

We're lucky in the sense we don't need to have the property rented out all the time. We thought about going back to the rental market but decided against it - the alternatives give us a return we're satisfied with and zero hassle - or at least a level of hassle we're comfortable with.

When we thought of going back to the market with the property we thought about "incentivising" good tenants - our plan was to agree with the tenant to refund refund 5 to 10% of the rent paid if, at the end of the tenancy, the property was returned in a condition acceptable to use.

I discussed the idea with our solicitor and he kind of went a bit nuts and strongly counselled against it......there seemed no other way for us to protect the property if we let it to a tenant, so off the market it came.

Judging by that attitude, the money spent with our solicitor was not wasted. However, it means a decent central property in Dublin will only go out on short term lets to very carefully vetted people, with us suitably indemnified.

They're not presumptions, my opinion is based on years of renting.

If you are/were a decent landlord then fine, I respect that. Not every Landlord I've had has been dodge, but the vast majority were. There's no point in me saying otherwise just because the few decent landlords on here will get upset like you have.

There are decent landlords and decent, like myself, tenants. There are those tenants then who couldn't give a toss about the place their staying in and will wreck the place and be a nuisance for their housemates. I've any amount of college/work and even previous landlord references.

No landlord is really on the breadline. None of the ones I've met in my time anyways. One landlord on here mentioned he has two properties, that's two more than most people and that's fair enough.

But please spare me this craic about landlords somehow letting for the good of it; it's a business, pure and simple.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting that mortgages aren't dead money. They get to keep the property at the end.

We won't get an asset at the end of our mortgage. And I'm sure we're far from alone in having an interest only btl mortgage.
We either need to have enough money saved from the rent to pay the full price outright (fat chance) or be able to sell to cover the cost.
Half way through we would be lucky to break even on the sale, after tax, fees, empty period while sale goes though etc. I doubt we'll make back the money we spent topping up the mortgage during the lean years.