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
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Tow
    Registered Users Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Tow


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

    This is actually a public sector issue. Staff are unwilling to take responsibility, so many projects get outsourced to 'consultants'. In most cases they have staff with the qualifications, it is just a matter of taking the plunge. Start small on a couple of houses, learn from the mistakes and grow from there.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Options
    #63
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    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

    You can't simply create money though- and as members of the Euro- our capacity to borrow is limited (and rightly so). Money *does not grow on trees* (or elsewhere).


  • Options
    #64
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,631 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    Tow wrote: »
    This is actually a public sector issue. Staff are unwilling to take responsibility, so many projects get outsourced to 'consultants'. In most cases they have staff with the qualifications, it is just a matter of taking the plunge. Start small on a couple of houses, learn from the mistakes and grow from there.

    Disagree
    The mistakes that can be made by inexperienced engineers and architects learning as they go can be costly and even dangerous.

    eg engineer or architect supervising fireproofing.


  • Options
    #65
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,877 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    You can't simply create money though- and as members of the Euro- our capacity to borrow is limited (and rightly so). Money *does not grow on trees* (or elsewhere).

    but it kinna does though, particularly within the financial sector, our current approach of the majority of money created via banking credit is killing us all, we cant keep growing our private debts, we have to move it back to more government created money, i.e. bonds, bank credit is continually just driving up asset prices, its unsustainable. many parts of the eu are experiencing similar issues, theres a deep flaw in the design of these monetary systems.

    central banks had no real issues in creating trillions globally when the crash happened, money creation is very easy when needs must, we re stuck in a loop

    public banking is another method of money creation, and is allowed under eu rules, but it has its limitations and faults.


  • Options
    #66
    Tow
    Registered Users Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭Tow


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    Disagree
    The mistakes that can be made by inexperienced engineers and architects learning as they go can be costly and even dangerous.

    eg engineer or architect supervising fireproofing.

    Of course, but you have to start somewhere. That's why you start small and learn from the mistakes. They have the resources get advice from experts on the finer details, as they go. Councils are traditionally supposed to be the building regulation 'inspectors'!

    But, as we all know 'big professional developers' are more than capable of FUBARing fire regulations.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Grumpypants wrote: »
    I wonder what could be the common driving factor for landlords with good tenents flooding out of the market?? :pac:
    Lack of rights. A tenant can move out at a moments notice, but if said tenant stopped paying rent it'd take the LL months to remove them, often at great expense that they won't recover. People say being a LL is a business, but at the same time deny the LL the same protections of a business.

    Also, the RPZ will ensure rents only go up, as the RPZ penalises LL#s who don't raise the rent by not allowing them raise the rent to market rate when the tenant leaves.
    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    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
    So your solution to create homes for the homeless is to increase the tax for everyone who works to build houses for the homeless?


  • Options
    #68
    jay0109
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭jay0109


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    but it kinna does though, particularly within the financial sector, our current approach of the majority of money created via banking credit is killing us all, we cant keep growing our private debts, we have to move it back to more government created money, i.e. bonds, bank credit is continually just driving up asset prices, its unsustainable. many parts of the eu are experiencing similar issues, theres a deep flaw in the design of these monetary systems.

    central banks had no real issues in creating trillions globally when the crash happened, money creation is very easy when needs must, we re stuck in a loop

    public banking is another method of money creation, and is allowed under eu rules, but it has its limitations and faults.

    I think we have the PbP/Solidarity Finance Spokesman/woman in our midst!


  • Options
    #69
    10pennymixup
    Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭10pennymixup


    Fol20 wrote: »
    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.

    I did say there is something else afoot, but I don't think a simple 3 plus out and 2 (or less) in, is it. And where this can occasionally happen, in the absence of firm stats it is no more likely than two renters moving out and a buyer family of 4 or more in.

    FTB's moving straight from their Mammies can not be the mean cause either.

    The cause is ultimately the lack of supply both in the rental and sales markets.

    If a LL terminates a lease and the tenant becomes homeless, it is the lack of available property to move to that caused their situation.


  • Options
    #70
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,905 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    It is (to me) silent Government policy to hand over all rentals to professionals like REITS.

    Problem is, their rents are far too high for HAP in many instances, and there are not enough social units to go around for those who cannot afford REIT properties. The high rents are also a great way to keep the Social tenant cohort out.

    The slack would have been largely taken up by non REIT landlords. But they are leaving the market in their droves.

    What gives now?


  • Options
    #71
    Lantus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,027 ✭✭✭Lantus


    The government seems happy to encourage large companies to become landlords.

    Meanwhile small landlords have a huge tax bill on rents, cant avail of commercial company advantages, can be wiped out by over holders and have a regulatory body that will always tend to act in their tenants issue. It must feel like everyone wants to take your money and then stamp on your face for the trouble.

    The only glimmer of free enterprise was air B&B. A well constructed business model that benefited landlords and consumers. The government was swift to destroy that market

    If only they could create a few houses with the same passion and vigour they destroy functional markets.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,529 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Tow wrote: »
    Of course, but you have to start somewhere. That's why you start small and learn from the mistakes. They have the resources get advice from experts on the finer details, as they go. Councils are traditionally supposed to be the building regulation 'inspectors'!

    But, as we all know 'big professional developers' are more than capable of FUBARing fire regulations.

    Dublin City Council have the skills inhouse to carry out these projects.
    It would be possible to get this down internally in my opinion.


  • Options
    #73
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    10pennymixup wrote: »
    I did say there is something else afoot, but I don't think a simple 3 plus out and 2 (or less) in, is it. And where this can occasionally happen, in the absence of firm stats it is no more likely than two renters moving out and a buyer family of 4 or more in.

    FTB's moving straight from their Mammies can not be the mean cause either.

    The cause is ultimately the lack of supply both in the rental and sales markets.

    If a LL terminates a lease and the tenant becomes homeless, it is the lack of available property to move to that caused their situation.

    I agree that lack of supply for both buying and renting is the main issue.

    Likewise people moving from their parents to a new unit is not the main reason either. Im just providing examples of how the rental industry( available beds) are shrinking due to the above. I cant find the article but there was a stat where more people are generally in rentals that ppr.


  • Options
    #74
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    It is (to me) silent Government policy to hand over all rentals to professionals like REITS.
    People didn't want "amateur" landlords. They're getting their wise. But the replacement is worse.
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Problem is, their rents are far too high for HAP in many instances
    So.... what you're saying is that in many instances rents are kept high top keep HAP people out?


  • Options
    #75
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    the_syco wrote: »
    People didn't want "amateur" landlords. They're getting their wise. But the replacement is worse.


    So.... what you're saying is that in many instances rents are kept high top keep HAP people out?

    In some cases yes.


  • Options
    #76
    the-island-man
    Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭the-island-man


    I have been a Landlord, I would have two main gripes:

    - The media and politicians always talk about protecting the tenants which I see as fair. I hate cowboy Landlord not paying their tax or maintaining their property. But there's never a discussion about protection for the Landlords investment. Tenants could wreck a property and the only proper route for recourse is the courts.

    - I spent time as a non-resident while I was a Landlord. I find it a ridiculous situation that rental income is taxed at a flat 20% for non-residents due to double taxation treaties and yet you can be living here contributing to the country and get taxed 40% on rental income.


  • Options
    #77
    Cal4567
    Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭Cal4567


    But there's never a discussion about protection for the Landlords investment.

    Being a landlord is a business, not a hobby. Why should the State protect your investment?


  • Options
    #78
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Cal4567 wrote: »
    But there's never a discussion about protection for the Landlords investment.

    Being a landlord is a business, not a hobby. Why should the State protect your investment?

    No reason if you want them all to leave the market.....


  • Options
    #79
    Cal4567
    Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭Cal4567


    Landlords leaving the market will put more properties out there for sale and for larger institutional landlords, be they private or NFP bodies, each of who will offer a much more professional service. The days of the small time landlord are gone.


  • Options
    #80
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Cal4567 wrote: »
    Landlords leaving the market will put more properties out there for sale and for larger institutional landlords, be they private or NFP bodies, each of who will offer a much more professional service. The days of the small time landlord are gone.

    Well that's exactly the situation we have now...

    ... seems to working out just fine....


  • Options
    #81
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    the_syco wrote: »
    People didn't want "amateur" landlords. They're getting their wise. But the replacement is worse.


    So.... what you're saying is that in many instances rents are kept high top keep HAP people out?

    re HAP; I thought it was not allowed to refuse hAP tenants? Although I did have it done to me on one occasion

    See ad on daft ie

    https://www.daft.ie/galway/houses-for-rent/ballinasloe/newtownkelly-clontuskert-ballinalsoe-ballinasloe-galway-1939587/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Graces7 wrote: »
    re HAP; I thought it was not allowed to refuse hAP tenants? Although I did have it done to me on one occasion

    See ad on daft ie

    https://www.daft.ie/galway/houses-for-rent/ballinasloe/newtownkelly-clontuskert-ballinalsoe-ballinasloe-galway-1939587/

    Maybe they’re not up to HAP standards and for that reason wouldn’t qualify for HAP?


  • Options
    #83
    tvjunki
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭tvjunki


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Maybe they’re not up to HAP standards and for that reason wouldn’t qualify for HAP?

    There could be a few reasons. It could also be they cannot tie the house up for 2years rental under the hap scheme as they may want to move back in after a year. Maybe part of the banks terms on a loan that they cannot do this type of rental or the insurance company will not cover this type of rental. It could be unfurnished or ber level is too low due to storage heating and no secondary heat source. Each council is different to their requirements.


  • Options
    #84
    coolshannagh28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭coolshannagh28


    Small landlords are more tolerant of "middling" tenants but as they are driven from the market by the government the "middling" tenant becomes homeless as the Vultures and REITs wont take them on.


  • Options
    #85
    Busterie
    Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭Busterie


    Cal4567 wrote: »
    Landlords leaving the market will put more properties out there for sale and for larger institutional landlords, be they private or NFP bodies, each of who will offer a much more professional service. The days of the small time landlord are gone.

    That is precisely what is not happening.When private landlords leave the market the houses are being bought by owner occupiers, which is why there is increased homelessness.
    I recently considered selling a rental house where half the houses in the estate are rented. I spoke to several auctioneers, not one suggested an investor would buy the house only first time buyers would be interested.


  • Options
    #86
    TSQ
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭TSQ


    Cal4567 wrote: »
    But there's never a discussion about protection for the Landlords investment.

    Being a landlord is a business, not a hobby. Why should the State protect your investment?

    I would think what the op meant, why does the law not equally protect the rights of property owners equally (or even a bit less equally) with the rights of tenants. Good Tenants are given all the supports of tenancy law against the unreasonable actions of bad landlords. Bad tenants are given all the supports of tenancy laws against the reasonable actions of good landlords. No landlord is given any support or has his rights vindicated by anything contained in tenancy legislation, particularly the right to regain use of or access to his property within a reasonable time if a tenant stops paying rent.


  • Options
    #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Busterie wrote: »
    That is precisely what is not happening.When private landlords leave the market the houses are being bought by owner occupiers, which is why there is increased homelessness.
    I recently considered selling a rental house where half the houses in the estate are rented. I spoke to several auctioneers, not one suggested an investor would buy the house only first time buyers would be interested.

    Do you not see that owner occupiers had to live somewhere before buying? What’s happened to that property now? Are you suggesting that it’s lying idle?


  • Options
    #88
    Nikki Sixx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭Nikki Sixx


    Could it be that they are out of negative equity and able to make a profit on selling their houses?


  • Options
    #89
    Nikki Sixx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭Nikki Sixx


    People who bought houses during the recession could be doubling their money by selling now.


  • Options
    #90
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Do you not see that owner occupiers had to live somewhere before buying? What’s happened to that property now? Are you suggesting that it’s lying idle?

    He's saying properties are leaving the rental market.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Cal4567 wrote: »
    But there's never a discussion about protection for the Landlords investment.

    Being a landlord is a business, not a hobby. Why should the State protect your investment?

    Nobody is asking for the investment to be protected, that's a risk all businesses have to take on. However, if my hypothetical house is destroyed by the tenant or the rent is not paid for months on end. That's just tough shít in most cases.


Advertisement