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

RTB seeing the light!

Options
«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,980 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    "However, the Irish Property Owners Association agreed with Dunne’s claim, but noted that two-thirds of all tenancies are let by property owners with less than three properties.

    “These are the landlords that the State needs to retain in the market. They are providing accommodation for most of the tenants renting” the group said in a statement."

    They are also leaving in droves, for the same reasons.


  • Options
    #3
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    Probably too late. Horse has already bolted


  • Options
    #4
    GavMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭GavMan


    Eoin O'Broin doing a fine comical Ali impression there


  • Options
    #5
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    I don't think its actually possible to keep these landlords happy long term

    So you develop a system where Govt or someone else buys the house from the Landlord at full vacant procession market rate.

    But keeps tenant in place.

    The challenges of keeping landlords happy......

    1) the mortgage may be based on an original purchase price that is more then current market value. Yet Landlord requires a monthly profit after paying that mortgage.

    2) if the original purchase price was 350 k and current market value is 250 k - it's better to have the house bought out at 250 k and start afresh.

    3) if the tax and eviction issues were resolved - does the landlord actually still have an interest in being a landlord.

    4) who bails out the landlords 2006 investment to allow it make a return on that 2006 investment and it's costs to date. Tenant??????. Govt?????.

    5) ALL Landlords WILL eventually leave the market - whether via a sale or the beneficiaries of a Landlords will deciding they want to sell up.

    6) Knowing that all Landlords will eventually leave the market - the question is what sort of operational model and incentives we should aim for new entrants.

    7) does the model of random people just entering the sector with 1 to 2 homes still work as a viable scenario in a lifetime rental situation - ie tenants never own their own home.


  • Options
    #6
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    I don't think its actually possible to keep these landlords happy long term

    So you develop a system where Govt or someone else buys the house from the Landlord at full vacant procession market rate.

    But keeps tenant in place.

    The challenges of keeping landlords happy......

    1) the mortgage may be based on an original purchase price that is more then current market value. Yet Landlord requires a monthly profit after paying that mortgage.

    2) if the original purchase price was 350 k and current market value is 250 k - it's better to have the house bought out at 250 k and start afresh.

    3) if the tax and eviction issues were resolved - does the landlord actually still have an interest in being a landlord.

    4) who bails out the landlords 2006 investment to allow it make a return on that 2006 investment and it's costs to date. Tenant??????. Govt?????.

    5) ALL Landlords WILL eventually leave the market - whether via a sale or the beneficiaries of a Landlords will deciding they want to sell up.

    6) Knowing that all Landlords will eventually leave the market - the question is what sort of operational model and incentives we should aim for new entrants.

    7) does the model of random people just entering the sector with 1 to 2 homes still work as a viable scenario in a lifetime rental situation - ie tenants never own their own home.

    Maybe treat it as a business like any other. If you don't pay for the service it is not supplied.

    The tax and quicker eviction would be enough for me personally. The tax payable is crazy, and not only that you pay PRSI on your rental income and get nothing in return for it as it is classed as unearned income Revenue in its wisdom charges you PRSI but you get nothing for it.

    Let economics play its part eg supply and demand. Nobody is expecting anybody to bail out the landlords where they don't want or cant continue in the business. But to expect someone to pay a mortgage when they are not receiving their rent is ridiculous.

    Using your sentiment of all landlords will eventually leave the market then the same can be said for tenants who either buy a property or are housed by the State.

    The model of landlords with one or two properties actually would work if the playing field was leveled a bit. Institutional landlords don't tenants an inch, small landlords actually do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    riemann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,063 ✭✭✭riemann


    rightmove wrote: »
    Probably too late. Horse has already bolted

    I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

    As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

    The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

    Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.


  • Options
    #8
    SozBbz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭SozBbz


    riemann wrote: »
    I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

    As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

    The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

    Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

    Plenty of people want rented accommodation for a variety of reasons. Once a house has people living in it, its being used for its proper use.

    I agree with previous posters, fairer tax treatment and the ability to bring a problem tenancy to a swift resolution would be really significant for me.

    Am new to the LL world, and have been a tenant earlier in life. I'm planning on being really fair to our tenants and in return I'd like them to treat the property with respect. I've no intention of impacting their rights and want them to enjoy their home, but in the nightmare scenario that they decide to trash the place and refuse to pay rent, I'd like to be able to end the tenancy without incurring months/years of lost rent and other costs.

    Its all about fairness.


  • Options
    #9
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    riemann wrote: »
    I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

    As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

    The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

    Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

    :confused: ah now I didn't know the houses had to be sold to families ...that's ok so...:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #10
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    riemann wrote: »
    I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

    As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

    The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

    Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

    This issue isn't about Landlords. They can sell, invest in something else. Doesn't really matter. Landlord never wanted the affordable or social housing business. They were forced into not refusing it by new laws. The Govt did that, because they didn't want it either.

    Its only a negative for people wanting rentals who don't have somewhere, as it reduces supply of rental units. That's the main crisis lack of affordable places to rent, or social housing. REITs in the main don't focus on affordable or Social.

    So you're basically saying you don't give a fig about affordable renting.


  • Options
    #11
    Baby01032012
    Registered Users Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Baby01032012


    riemann wrote: »
    I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.

    As opposed to seeing a house as an asset to be milked for all its worth, it is back to being used as per its proper use.

    The supply of residential units is close to catching up with demand, could be a blessing in disguise being "forced to sell".

    Poor landlords, the real victims of the housing crisis.

    I think you're missing the point. Yes supply is catching up with demand and house prices are levelling or even decreasing. However there still is and never will be enough supply of rental accommodation. Rental prices will still increase yet the average landlord will still leave the market despite high rental values. There is no incentive for small landlords to stay in the market. And the market sure does need them...to service the social tenants as much as the private tenants.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    It's a none issue. The govt have full control over this. If they want to fix it they can. Instead they are blathering on about landlords who have nothing to do with it.


  • Options
    #13
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    I think we still need more 1 bed rental units built in dublin
    to provide rental units for people on lower incomes or students
    that are not well off .
    i think house prices are falling slightly because people are worried about brexit , as well as increasing supply .
    Most of the new buildings being built for students are aimed at students
    who can afford to pay high rents for top class accomodation .
    Theres plenty of landlords out there who cannot afford to sell up, their are still in negative equity .
    They are renting to a tenant , paying high tax,s and making a very small profit .


  • Options
    #14
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    riemann wrote: »
    I love how this is presented as a negative, when in reality landlords being forced to sell up allows families to buy houses to live in, put down roots and form a community.
    No landlords in rural areas will kill off small rural towns, as REITs will only exist in the larger towns, and people don't have the money to buy the moment they leave college.


  • Options
    #15
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    Actions rather than belated words from the rtb would have made a difference but their own figures have showed the exit from the market by small LL who have been badly treated by the Gov and I hope they remember it at election time


  • Options
    #16
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    We need more landlords, not less .Many single people working in urban area,s cannot afford to buy a house .They need a flat or a room to rent, a good rental market with units for people on lower or average incomes is an essential part of any economy .
    if There were more 1 bed house,s or apartments on the market it would enable more older people living alone to sell up their house,s and
    provide more supply for familys who want to buy a house .


  • Options
    #17
    the-island-man
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭the-island-man


    I am a Landlord and for two and a half years I was non-resident. During that time I only paid 20% tax on my rental income as per the double taxation treaty which was in place. I find it ridiculous that I get taxed more while resident in the country and contributing to the day to day running of the country.

    For the two and a half years I was in Switzerland. When you lease a property there they look for the following:
    - Credit Check
    - Application form
    - Passports & Work Permits
    - 3 months rent as a deposit (Which for me was 5,250 CHF - 4,777 Euro)
    - First months rent
    - Letter of motivation outlining why I want to live in the area

    Most leases specify that you need to give 3 months notice to terminate the lease and you cannot end your occupancy in the month of December and you cannot move out or into an apartment on a Sunday because it's the day of rest.

    On top of this the letting agency requires you to present the apartment back in the condition in which you found it which leads to most people hiring professional cleaners when they leave an apartment. The professional cleaners give you a gurantee that the apartment will be cleaned to the standards the letting agency expects. but the cleaners usually cost upwards of 1000 CHF. You also have to pay for anything you broke or if the apartment needs to be repainted.

    In return for all this cost the tenant gets a lot of security and it is almost impossible to turf them out unless you can prove you are doing major renovations.

    Both sides of the coin are bad here in that there is no responsibility for either tenant or landlord. It is funny however that the tenant can thrash a place, walk way with maybe only the months deposit being confiscated and they still think Landlords are scum. Of course some Landlords are scum but it's definitely not a panacea.


  • Options
    #18
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    the-island-man wrote: »
    I

    Both sides of the coin are bad here in that there is no responsibility for either tenant or landlord. I...ea.

    Rtb has nailed the LL but tenant can do what they want


  • Options
    #19
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    If a tenant wants to stay on in a property ,it may take a year or more to go to court and evict them .
    They can leave the property and wreck it ,
    it will be very hard or maybe a waste of time to get any compensation for the damage .
    The law is biased in favour of the tenant .
    So its important to ask for id and various documents before you decide to
    take on a tenant .
    One of the documents should be proof of employment,
    i work for company x, info on income ,eg a payslip.
    If in doubt ,move on to another potential tenant .


  • Options
    #20
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    But has rtb seen the light even if too late. And what can they do about it,?


  • Options
    #21
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    rightmove wrote: »
    But has rtb seen the light even if too late. And what can they do about it,?

    Nothing. They are constrained by the legal framework they exist in.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    beauf wrote: »
    Nothing. They are constrained by the legal framework they exist in.
    They could prioritise hearings for unpaid rent etc.


  • Options
    #23
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    murphaph wrote: »
    They could prioritise hearings for unpaid rent etc.

    How much time would that save Vs the time between notice to actually getting the property back.

    Would that time saved keep people in the business that would otherwise leave. I don't think so.


  • Options
    #24
    disposableFish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭disposableFish


    Old diesel wrote: »
    4) who bails out the landlords 2006 investment to allow it make a return on that 2006 investment and it's costs to date. Tenant??????. Govt?????.

    I don't really get that point. Why does the landlord have a right to make a return.
    It's an investment, they took a risk/miscalculated the risk and it didn't pay off.

    I agree with many of the concerns of landlords (in particular, how much the legal system is failing them/everyone else with how slow it is), but your point here really is their own fault (though I do believe that banks should share some responsibility for making loans that - them being experts - they should have known were bad and had a responsibility not to give).


  • Options
    #25
    disposableFish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭disposableFish


    riclad wrote: »
    The law is biased in favour of the tenant .

    I disagree, I would say its general inadequacy favours anyone who's willing to flout the law, be they landlord or tenant.


  • Options
    #26
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    beauf wrote: »
    Nothing. They are constrained by the legal framework they exist in.
    Maybe taking a case on behalf of the LL or making proposals to gov to streamline evictions?...or pursuing non paying tenants etc etc


  • Options
    #27
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    disposableFish wrote: »
    I disagree, I would say its general inadequacy favours anyone who's willing to flout the law, be they landlord or tenant.

    LL because they actually have skin in the game is always going to be coming off worse


  • Options
    #28
    disposableFish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭disposableFish


    rightmove wrote: »
    LL because they actually have skin in the game is always going to be coming off worse

    Everyone needs somewhere to live - that's a pretty big deal for a tenant.

    Looks like you're making a general statement based on one scenario - where a tenant flouts the law and the situation (I'm agreeing with you here) favours the tenant. (It's not really the law that favours them here IMO, it's how damn long it takes to get it done).

    But that's just one aspect. On the other hand you have a large number of illegal evictions, substandard/dangerous accommodation, landlords refusing leases/demanding cash payments etc.

    So like I said, I don't think it favours one "side", it favours "cute huars" who are willing to screw over someone else for their own gain. If regulations were a bit stricter and actually enforced then all (honest) landlords and tenants would be happier.


  • Options
    #29
    corks finest
    Registered Users Posts: 8,629 ✭✭✭corks finest


    Attended as a witness for Cluid housing association lately in Cork,said tenant appealing an eviction order ( 2 nd time) adjudicator was a local barrister, tenant was obstructive, intimidating, rough as Fu*k, unruly causing serious hassle with several neighbours ( including me) since 2009 ,other witness was a co council tenant ( nearby ) who co incidentally had court proceedings against the same animal the next day for stalking/ putting a knife up to her throat etc etc,
    I put it to the 2 Cluid housing officers that we wouldn't be in such a situation if they were more bloody careful in who they left into their houses,all I got was yes, sorry,won't happen again etc
    This individual is an alcoholic,on serious medication, doesent give a fu*k who hears what ,near constant noise,yet all of a sudden since the hearing ( he's waiting for the outcome) not a word from the bollox,no noise,no nothing
    P.s. a near neighbour ,also Cluid is getting evicted early November,selling heroin,parties , prostituting etc,
    My point really is social housing need to get serious ref who they allocate houses to.
    Lots of deserving ppl with kids on waiting lists for years,yet they hand out houses to scroungers, trouble makers,druggies,,,,
    Anyone doubt my words regards hassle where I live in Carrigaline,can p.m. me for details,I will respond and include a number


  • Options
    #30
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    disposableFish wrote: »
    I don't really get that point. Why does the landlord have a right to make a return.
    It's an investment, they took a risk/miscalculated the risk and it didn't pay off.
    If it were a business, the non-payer of rent would be evicted a lot quicker!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    The law at present discourages investors and potential landlords as it favour,s the tenant .
    In case,s where a tenant stays in a house and refuse,s to pay any rent .


Advertisement