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

Private landlords leaving the market is the number one reason for homelessness

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Cal4567
    Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭Cal4567


    Bikerman2019 wrote: »
    There are a bunch of investors buying up hundreds of properties, sending in a crew of builders/handymen/painters stripping them back to factory setting, putting in new appliances and furniture, then letting the properties to the council on 20 year leases.


    They are doing serious work and they get the property back in time to come. The council is only kicking the can down the road.



    I personally cleared out one house and while painting it, I listened on the radio about an inquest for a local girl who killed herself in emergency accomodation in kildare. The house I cleared out was let to the council and they moved in people from another house who didnt like it. Driving a 131 car paying about 50 euro a week contribution. Never worked a day in Ireland since they arrived.


    I was peed off. There are some serious feck ups with the SDCC system of allocation.

    Heard about this. Talk about property still being a commodity. Yet another short term government policy and FF as much as fault as FG. The only person who really benefits out of this is the freehold owner.

    The mass sheeplike drive to own a second or even a third property in the mad years was comfortably used by government as social housing rather than building new stock. Also a significant amount of these new landlords really had no idea of regulations and didn't see it much more than just beyond being a cash cow, never mind the fact that they would have to be managing real everyday people.

    This vast number of small landlords perked up government which has led to higher tax controls and we are now where we are now.

    The tax friendly approach to large scale institutional landlords in recent years has made it even worse for the small time landlord. Don't forget also, they never really wanted to be landlords, that wasn't their driver. It was just something to 'top up my pension'.


  • Options
    #33
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    beauf wrote: »
    The supply of property to buy and to rent are not the same thing.

    The supply of both may even be increasing but if it can't meet demand, due to population growth, and immigration.

    Then we have a shortage.

    We have a shortage of suitable accommodation, but the change in status of these properties from rental to owner occupied is irrelevant as the new occupants have likely exited the rental market and even if not directly, they have freed up a space on the rental market, unless they are new to Ireland, in which case, in the absence of purchasing this property they would have added to demand in the rental market.


  • Options
    #34
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    beauf wrote: »
    I would guess most FTB go for new builds no?

    Who are ‘private’ landlords selling to?
    Always wondered.


  • Options
    #35
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Glenbhoy wrote: »
    We have a shortage of suitable accommodation, but the change in status of these properties from rental to owner occupied is irrelevant as the new occupants have likely exited the rental market and even if not directly, they have freed up a space on the rental market, unless they are new to Ireland, in which case, in the absence of purchasing this property they would have added to demand in the rental market.

    They might have come from their parents house.. maybe it's left empty. I know a good few empty houses. One I used to live in had been empty for 25yrs in decent area in Dublin.

    This idea that you don't lose rental stock isnt true. Because we are losing rental stock.

    We lost 50,000 landlords in the last crash gained back about half that. Demand is higher than the available stock and was last I saw still shrinking. The REITs might change this though.


  • Options
    #36
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    Who are ‘private’ landlords selling to?
    Always wondered.

    I'm sure it's pretty varied, and includes some which remain empty.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    ....... wrote: »
    Lack of social housing is the number one reason there are so many homeless.

    Until the government address this we will see more and more homelessness.

    The money just isn’t there to build masses of social houses.

    Gone are the days unfortunately.


  • Options
    #38
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    The money just isn’t there to build masses of social houses.

    Gone are the days unfortunately.


    Well the Government and County Councils need to find the money.

    Its was never clever nor sustainable to put social housing obligations on private landlords.

    The inertia policy of the FG led governments for the past 8 years is what has us with a housing crisis.

    Where have all the new taxes during their time introduced gone ?


  • Options
    #39
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Cal4567 wrote: »
    Heard about this. Talk about property still being a commodity. Yet another short term government policy and FF as much as fault as FG. The only person who really benefits out of this is the freehold owner.

    The mass sheeplike drive to own a second or even a third property in the mad years was comfortably used by government as social housing rather than building new stock. Also a significant amount of these new landlords really had no idea of regulations and didn't see it much more than just beyond being a cash cow, never mind the fact that they would have to be managing real everyday people.

    This vast number of small landlords perked up government which has led to higher tax controls and we are now where we are now.

    The tax friendly approach to large scale institutional landlords in recent years has made it even worse for the small time landlord. Don't forget also, they never really wanted to be landlords, that wasn't their driver. It was just something to 'top up my pension'.
    Social housing hasn't been built in large numbers for a very long time. From the 1970s on, councils divested themselves of stock in favour of the current model of using the private sector as back up. The situation as it stands is still in a state of dysfunction. Not all of these are to blame. We still have far too many small landlords and there is a place for large scale landlords. We also still have a stock deficit in apartments for rent, social housing and affordable housing.


  • Options
    #40
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Wheeliebin30 wrote:
    The money just isn’t there to build masses of social houses.


    If allowed, we could simple create it, as creating money is easy, there just isn't political will at the moment, so this problem is going to continue indefinitely


  • Options
    #41
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Social housing hasn't been built in large numbers for a very long time. From the 1970s on, councils divested themselves of stock in favour of the current model of using the private sector as back up. The situation as it stands is still in a state of dysfunction. Not all of these are to blame. We still have far too many small landlords and there is a place for large scale landlords. We also still have a stock deficit in apartments for rent, social housing and affordable housing.


    70s ? Stop.


    Do not forget that this current flock of political geniuses introduced NAMA, sold land and property stock at knock down prices to vulture funds, yet kept no stock for social housing. A massively missed opportunity, compounded by the very agencies and Councils now competing for the same housing stock at retail prices from the vulture funds and developers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Social housing hasn't been built in large numbers for a very long time. From the 1970s on, councils divested themselves of stock in favour of the current model of using the private sector as back up. The situation as it stands is still in a state of dysfunction. Not all of these are to blame. We still have far too many small landlords and there is a place for large scale landlords. We also still have a stock deficit in apartments for rent, social housing and affordable housing.

    The reason you have so many is exactly this stopping off building social and affordable housing. It happened all over Europe. The rise of cheap credit and also housing policy that encouraged using housing for investment vehicles. That is ok in small amounts but not uncontrolled and unlimited. Not along side restricting supply by not building local authority housing.

    Small landlords are a symptom not a cause. Which is why constantly attacking them is making the situation worse. The move to large reits will change this, but for the better? I'm dubious. Did it work anywhere else like London. No. Is this ignoring of what's happened in other markets what we are going with REITs also. Yes. I don't have a problem with REITs they are definitely part of a solution. But uncontrolled? Again?


  • Options
    #43
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,515 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    The mentality of the market is anti landlords, too much tax, no respect for property, no proper system to remove trouble tenants, over staying is becoming socially acceptable and even encouraged by tenant support groups.

    I think myself it won’t be long until a law is passed barring tenants from being evicted. The government will be desperate to keep people houses they will saddle private landlords with them permanently.

    Got nightmare tenants out at Christmas and got our house renovated to sell. The only reason we didn’t sell was my brother wanted to rent it. We will sell before letting anyone else in.
    Something like 70% of the rented accommodation locally to us has been sold off and it’s near impossible for small families to get a decent house to rent.

    Rental market cannot function without landlords making a proper profit. Changes have been made to reign in “greedy landlords” with taxes etc. All that has resulted is a collapse in numbers of units available. Being a landlord in the current market is difficult so the returns would need to be attractive, yet every change I see makes it less and less attractive so the decline in units will continue and so those with nowhere to rent will increase.

    Society can’t have it both ways, if we want lots of rental accommodation available we need to make it an attractive business to be in, not a nightmare.


  • Options
    #44
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    _Brian wrote:
    Society can’t have it both ways, if we want lots of rental accommodation available we need to make it an attractive business to be in, not a nightmare.


    Our current approach is exposing both parties, I can't see any changes coming, if I was a landlord, I'd be seriously considering getting out also, its an incredible mess


  • Options
    #45
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    STB. wrote: »
    70s ? Stop.


    Do not forget that this current flock of political geniuses introduced NAMA, sold land and property stock at knock down prices to vulture funds, yet kept no stock for social housing. A massively missed opportunity, compounded by the very agencies and Councils now competing for the same housing stock at retail prices from the vulture funds and developers.
    That's when it started. They copied what was going in Britain. NAMA has done what it was supposed to do: clean up the banking system and offload property linked to that. In this withering analysis you seem to have forgotten that there was no building whatsoever from 2011-2014. In addition, many councils neither have the skills nor the competence to build anything much.


  • Options
    #46
    10pennymixup
    Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭10pennymixup


    DelBoy Trotter wrote: »
    While private landlords leaving the rental market is a problem, it helps in the house buying sector as it means more houses for those looking to buy a house (and leave the rental market themselves)

    That is a very logical assumption to make. LL sells, their tenant is made homeless but another ex tenant, now buyer, moves in to that house. Things balance or so you would think.

    But as the numbers of landlords leaving goes up, so to does the number of homeless. So there is something else happening and LLs selling is not addressing the supply issue in any meaningful way.

    It's a red herring.


  • Options
    #47
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    beauf wrote: »

    Small landlords are a symptom not a cause. Which is why constantly attacking them is having no effect?

    Are you sure about that?
    Total rental stock has declined.
    For every two llthat leave the market, one is entering.

    This sounds like it is having an effect on the market as rental prices have never been so high. There are other factors also but this does not help.


  • Options
    #48
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    beauf wrote: »
    The reason you have so many is exactly this stopping off building social and affordable housing. It happened all over Europe. The rise of cheap credit and also housing policy that encouraged using housing for investment vehicles. That is ok in small amounts but not uncontrolled and unlimited. Not along side restricting supply by not building local authority housing.

    Small landlords are a symptom not a cause. Which is why constantly attacking them is having no effect. The move to large reits will change this, but for the better? I'm dubious. Did it work anywhere else like London. No. Is this ignoring of what's happened in other markets what we are going with REITs also. Yes. I don't have a problem with REITs they are definitely part of a solution. But uncontrolled? Again?
    I'm not sure about REITs myself. For now they do look like they are milking it but their structure makes them beholden to shareholder return. In a market with better supply they can be part fo the solution. AFAIK the model is common enough in Austria and some other northern European countries. Whether we have the right version of them for Ireland still remains to be seen.


  • Options
    #49
    Cyclepath
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Cyclepath


    Grumpypants wrote: »
    I see Ireland's biggest land lord is buying up 800 or so houses. That brings their holding to over 3500 units. 3500 houses Irish families can't buy.

    These Reits don't pay 58% tax in their income. They pay practically nothing.

    Our government screws landlords living here, and incentives those taking millions out of the country for big investment funds.

    ^^ underrated point here. I got out of the game a long time ago. I was a reluctant landlord to start with as I had to rent the house while working in another country.

    You pay your mortgage hopefully with the rental income but usually have to top it up with some of your own PAYE earnings, and then you pay tax on the so called 'profit' you made on the rental! To compensate, you supposedly have a capital value increase in the property - but that didn't work out well between 2007 and 2013.

    Many landlords are now getting out of the market because their properties have finally come back to a value where they can sell and break even on the balance of the mortgage owed.

    Meanwhile the REITS are benefitting from tax breaks, so say hello to your new corporate landlords!


  • Options
    #50
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,632 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    is_that_so wrote: »
    In addition, many councils neither have the skills nor the competence to build anything much.


    Dealing with council engineers daily I'd say they'd freely admit that no council has the competence to build houses.

    They'd end up paying consulting engineer and architect firms to oversee. Tenders out and private builders to build.

    But big savings could be made on the land.


  • Options
    #51
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    is_that_so wrote: »
    That's when it started. They copied what was going in Britain. NAMA has done what it was supposed to do: clean up the banking system and offload property linked to that. In this withering analysis you seem to have forgotten that there was no building whatsoever from 2011-2014. In addition, many councils neither have the skills nor the competence to build anything much.

    It was poor value for the country in the middle of a housing apocalypse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Are you sure about that?
    Total rental stock has declined.
    For every two llthat leave the market, one is entering.

    This sounds like it is having an effect on the market as rental prices have never been so high. There are other factors also but this does not help.

    I should have said no positive effect in fixing the problem. It's having a negative effect certainly.


  • Options
    #53
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    The money just isn’t there to build masses of social houses.

    Gone are the days unfortunately.
    There is a very sizeable sum allocated for this but nobody has determined how many should be built. It's also bogged down in how they can be built and what model is best i.e. mixed v social only. At the back of it I also reckon that the powers that be, councils and the government, will still expect the private sector to pick up the slack.


  • Options
    #54
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    10pennymixup wrote: »
    That is a very logical assumption to make. LL sells, their tenant is made homeless but another ex tenant, now buyer, moves in to that house. Things balance or so you would think.

    But as the numbers of landlords leaving goes up, so to does the number of homeless. So there is something else happening and LLs selling is not addressing the supply issue in any meaningful way.

    It's a red herring.

    Rentals usually hold more people per household than a PPR. So if a rental is a 3 bed. You will more than likely have at least 3 people staying there. Maybe more depending on setup. Usually FTB are a couple so thats one person less in that house.

    Not all people that buy are ex renters. I know some people that still lived at home after college not because they couldnt afford to rent. They choose to save and then buy their house so thats another rental gone with the new buyer taking up an entire property when in the past he didnt impact the market at all.


  • Options
    #55
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    I do think a land value tax is desperately needed to start tackling this problem, but there's not a hope of this occurring due to its known 'negative' effects, I.e. possible reduction in house prices, and who would vote for that! What a mess


  • Options
    #56
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    beauf wrote: »
    It was poor value for the country in the middle of a housing apocalypse.
    Well we had a banking apocalypse first to deal with.


  • Options
    #57
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    Dealing with council engineers daily I'd say they'd freely admit that no council has the competence to build houses.

    They'd end up paying consulting engineer and architect firms to oversee. Tenders out and private builders to build.

    But big savings could be made on the land.
    Oh I think it needs a whole lot of joined up thinking in all areas and in some cases just the will to do it.


  • Options
    #58
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    is_that_so wrote: »
    That's when it started. They copied what was going in Britain. NAMA has done what it was supposed to do: clean up the banking system and offload property linked to that. In this withering analysis you seem to have forgotten that there was no building whatsoever from 2011-2014. In addition, many councils neither have the skills nor the competence to build anything much.

    Started ? You need to get where they finished. It was never the policy until quite recently that the government of Ireland abdicated the social housing responsiblities to private landlords. The reason for that decision is to mask their inertia over an 8 year period 2011-2019 which has resulted in a runaway train largely caused by inaction and bad decisions. Property taxes, rent controls and forced social obligations have solved everything!!

    In 1985 this country built 6,900 social houses.

    30 years later that figure was 75.

    I cant explain it any clearly than that.

    Withering ? I can be scathing if you like. :)


  • Options
    #59
    Cyclepath
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Cyclepath


    STB. wrote: »

    In 1985 this country built 6,900 social houses.

    30 years later that figure was 75.

    I cant explain it any clearly than that.

    Withering ? I can be scathing if you like. :)

    Agree, it's a question of priorities. we're spending billions on bringing the internet to rural homes, when many people don't even have a home.

    We could easily build new houses if we had politicians with any sort of social conscience.


  • Options
    #60
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    STB. wrote: »
    Started ? You need to get where they finished. It was never the policy until quite recently that the government of Ireland abdicated the social housing responsiblities to private landlords. The reason for that decision is to mask their inertia over an 8 year period 2011-2019 which has resulted in a runaway train largely caused by inaction and bad decisions. Property taxes, rent controls and forced social obligations have solved everything!!

    In 1985 this country built 6,900 social houses.

    30 years later that figure was 75.

    I cant explain it any clearly than that.

    Withering ? I can be scathing if you like. :)
    Social housing is actually a council remit, the government just makes cash available. There has been a scheme to buy since 1973 and building did not keep pace with what they sold.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Cyclepath wrote: »
    Agree, it's a question of priorities. we're spending billions on bringing the internet to rural homes, when many people don't even have a home.

    We could easily build new houses if we had politicians with any sort of social conscience.
    There is an allocation of up to €1.5bn for social housing so the money is there. The problem is there is nobody really building them in numbers. The private sector will stabilise but does need a better supply of affordable and high density(apartments).


Advertisement