Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

Idbatterim · 17-04-2020 5:39pm

I can see some working from home permanently, more likely some will now work from home one or two days a week and go into office the other days

Claw Hammer · 22-04-2020 5:39pm

the inflow o property due to the Airbnb closedown looks to be easing already.

https://www.thejournal.ie/housing-rent-dublin-daft-report-covid-5081233-Apr2020/

Hubertj · 22-04-2020 6:48pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

the inflow o property due to the Airbnb closedown looks to be easing already.

https://www.thejournal.ie/housing-rent-dublin-daft-report-covid-5081233-Apr2020/

Where have the people gone that were saying this would be a game changer and end of the housing crisis?

Ozark707 · 22-04-2020 10:16pm

Interesting words from the minister...lets see if they truly follow through

Mr Murphy said "what is abundantly clear in this crisis is the amount of short-term lettings that are now available for homeless services, the HSE and others and that we need to take the next step and regulate these online platforms, the next government has to have this as a priority".

The Government introduced planning controls which required owner occupiers on short-term letting properties to register and those letting out second properties were told they would require planning permission that would be unlikely to be granted in a rent pressure zone.

However, only 239 hosts came forward even though the online monitoring company Inside Airbnb estimates there are more than 7,200 short-term letting properties in the capital.

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2020/0421/1132968-airbnb-properties/

shenanagans · 22-04-2020 10:35pm

The whole short term let thing had two but appeals for LLs the money and the lack of obligations/rights. New legislation has given significant rights to tenants once in a property 6 months. It's very difficult and expensive to get a non-paying tenant out today.

If LLs are to be tempted back into the market we need to improve regulations for LLs. I can't see why good LLs shouldn't be protected properly.

Decent rent paying tenants who look after rental properties shouldn't have any objection to this IMO.

LLs have mortgages and bills to pay too. And why should they subsidise someone elses lifestyle by providing a property for no rent or have a property thrashed.

The whole issue need to be looked at from Both Sides. We've protected the tenants now do something for the LL in regards to protection.

Ozark707 · 22-04-2020 10:50pm

shenanagans wrote: »

If LLs are to be tempted back into the market we need to improve regulations for LLs. I can't see why good LLs shouldn't be protected properly.

Decent rent paying tenants who look after rental properties shouldn't have any objection to this IMO.

Hopefully sense will prevail and they make moves to do this.

Hubertj · 23-04-2020 7:52am

Ozark707 wrote: »

Interesting words from the minister...lets see if they truly follow through

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2020/0421/1132968-airbnb-properties/

Do the regs also apply to people that let their house or apartment for a couple of weeks while they go on holiday? Or is it just units used for short term let’s full time?
I’ve used Airbnb in other countries a few times and the house was primary residence of people who were gone on holidays for a few weeks. I don’t see a problem with that.

Samuel T. Cogley · 23-04-2020 8:08am

Hubertj wrote: »

Do the regs also apply to people that let their house or apartment for a couple of weeks while they go on holiday? Or is it just units used for short term let’s full time?
I’ve used Airbnb in other countries a few times and the house was primary residence of people who were gone on holidays for a few weeks. I don’t see a problem with that.

You can do it for upto 90 days IIRC.

sk8board · 23-04-2020 8:48am

Ozark707 wrote: »

. However, only 239 hosts came forward even though the online monitoring company Inside Airbnb estimates there are more than 7,200 short-term letting properties in the capital.

Bear in mind that the 7,200 number includes:
- people who live in the house too
- people genuinely following the 90 day Airbnb rule
- people who wouldn’t rent the house even if they couldn’t Airbnb

The true number of whole-properties available to the rental market is far far lower.

Even in the last few weeks only a few hundred properties in Dublin City from that ‘7,200’ appeared on the rental market.

This is no panacea.

JimmyVik · 23-04-2020 8:55am

I was talking to one guy yesterday who has advertised an apartment in Dublin City Center.
He was very honest, but it didnt suit me.

He told me he has been furloughed right back in March and moved back home with parents for the quarantine so he could help out there rather than be locked in an apartment.
He was offering the apartment for maximum for 6 months but if the he got his job back he would want the place back within the week.

Im looking for more long term, but I understand that he is trying to make his expensive property pay its way. I dont think hes going to get anyone at the moment with those conditions though.
That would have been ripe for Airbnb though in normal times.

Assetbacked · 23-04-2020 12:25pm

JimmyVik wrote: »

I was talking to one guy yesterday who has advertised an apartment in Dublin City Center.
He was very honest, but it didnt suit me.

He told me he has been furloughed right back in March and moved back home with parents for the quarantine so he could help out there rather than be locked in an apartment.
He was offering the apartment for maximum for 6 months but if the he got his job back he would want the place back within the week.

Im looking for more long term, but I understand that he is trying to make his expensive property pay its way. I dont think hes going to get anyone at the moment with those conditions though.
That would have been ripe for Airbnb though in normal times.

Having to cover the mortgage alone on an investment property for a year or so would be par for the course (albeit this is an extreme event) but it is likely to only be until things can start to get back to normal into Q1 2020 (the relevance of Q1 2020 being the start of semester two in colleges and the start of the tourist season in spring). Not a long period in the grand scheme of things.

shenanagans · 23-04-2020 2:09pm

sk8board wrote: »

Bear in mind that the 7,200 number includes:
- people who live in the house too
- people genuinely following the 90 day Airbnb rule
- people who wouldn’t rent the house even if they couldn’t Airbnb

The true number of whole-properties available to the rental market is far far lower.

Even in the last few weeks only a few hundred properties in Dublin City from that ‘7,200’ appeared on the rental market.

This is no panacea.

Improved regulation would help with this.... Encourage landlords into the market.

Assetbacked · 23-04-2020 2:12pm

shenanagans wrote: »

Improved regulation would help with this.... Encourage landlords into the market.

FG will hopefully realise their mistakes the last few years as part of negotiations to go into government, having been responsible for the introduction of measures the past few years which drove landlords out of the market. The key will be to welcome institutional investors but not to give in to all demands from the powerful institutional lobby groups. Short term tax breaks for individual landlords would be a great start to getting them back into the market and for lowering rents, but it is also important that evictions for non-payment of rent can be streamlined. Not sure how practicable that is in the current environment unfortunately but it is a bugbear of mine that it is not possible to shift tenants for non-payment of rent (and mortgage holders for non-payment for that matter) in an efficient manner; it hurts good tenants and scares away landlords.

sk8board · 23-04-2020 2:19pm

As a full time LL, I would be massively sceptical that LL’s (of all groups) would get a tax break to stay in the market. Covid etc etc.

Public sentiment is very pro market forces - ‘if the LLs want to leave, then let them go’ etc etc, even if the results would be negative for the renters.

Personal view here is that the Gov should allow people with 3+ properties to form a company, be beholden to the rules, and professionalise the market.
They love the reits, simply because one conversation is the same as talking to 2,000 single property LLs.

shenanagans · 23-04-2020 2:20pm

Assetbacked wrote: »

FG will hopefully realise their mistakes the last few years as part of negotiations to go into government, having been responsible for the introduction of measures the past few years which drove landlords out of the market. The key will be to welcome institutional investors but not to give in to all demands from the powerful institutional lobby groups. Short term tax breaks for individual landlords would be a great start to getting them back into the market and for lowering rents, but it is also important that evictions for non-payment of rent can be streamlined. Not sure how practicable that is in the current environment unfortunately but it is a bugbear of mine that it is not possible to shift tenants for non-payment of rent (and mortgage holders for non-payment for that matter) in an efficient manner; it hurts good tenants and scares away landlords.

Absolutely. Next housing minister needs to use more carrot and less stick when it comes to landlords and potential landlords.

JimmyVik · 23-04-2020 2:39pm

Assetbacked wrote: »

Having to cover the mortgage alone on an investment property for a year or so would be par for the course (albeit this is an extreme event) but it is likely to only be until things can start to get back to normal into Q1 2020 (the relevance of Q1 2020 being the start of semester two in colleges and the start of the tourist season in spring). Not a long period in the grand scheme of things.

He was offering the apartment he was living in though. But he wont be living in it while the coronavirus is ongoing.

JimmyVik · 23-04-2020 2:40pm

shenanagans wrote: »

Improved regulation would help with this.... Encourage landlords into the market.

I thought about property investment a few years ago. Nothing the government gave at this stage would get me to invest. I wouldnt trust them to not just take it all backi when they felt like it, but make it even worse.

It would want to be zero tax and a promise that it would be like that for at least 10 years. I still wouldnt belive them though

Claw Hammer · 23-04-2020 2:42pm

Hubertj wrote: »

Do the regs also apply to people that let their house or apartment for a couple of weeks while they go on holiday? Or is it just units used for short term let’s full time?
I’ve used Airbnb in other countries a few times and the house was primary residence of people who were gone on holidays for a few weeks. I don’t see a problem with that.

It depends on the use the tenant is making of the property. The RTB does nt cover lettings where it is for the purpose of a holiday. It doesn't define the lenght of a holiday so it would be a question of fact if it arose as to whether or not the letting was for a holiday.

There is no minimum length to qualify as a letting comprehended by the ACT so any letting which is not for a holiday may be caught.

It could be that in a letting for a week so that the occupants can attend a conference that it is not a letting for the purpose of a holiday. There will be great fun in the RTB when these cases start.

shenanagans · 23-04-2020 4:10pm

JimmyVik wrote: »

I thought about property investment a few years ago. Nothing the government gave at this stage would get me to invest. I wouldnt trust them to not just take it all backi when they felt like it, but make it even worse.

It would want to be zero tax and a promise that it would be like that for at least 10 years. I still wouldnt belive them though

They had great incentives to buy property in last recession........you could buy a property and sell it tax free 6 or 7 years later. And with the huge changes to regulation in favour of tenants it's no wonder many LLs left the market.

I think regulation is a big factor now if you're a LL. There's no protection against bad tenants. It could cost you thousands in legal fees and lost rent to evict a tenant.....thanks to FG.

It's time to put protection on place for LLs too.

Sunny Disposition · 24-04-2020 10:57pm

Being a landlord in a big city has been like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel for years, Dublin, London, NY, same forces in all, huge global trend to urbanisation. Was lucky in that I had properties in London for some of it and Dublin in latter years.
Don’t think the next 20 years will be the same, technology changed office work already, but it’s about to do it in a very different way. People are going to move house much less often for work, and when they do move it’s going to be more likely to be for a primary industry or something like teaching or nursing.
There will be much less need to live in big cities, the upward pressure on prices won’t be there to anything like the same extent.
Everything moves on and huge premiums for living in big cities won’t be paid for much longer.
Strange to say it now but I think smaller regional town are a better bet for investors now.

overkill602 · 25-04-2020 6:06am

shenanagans wrote: »

They had great incentives to buy property in last recession........you could buy a property and sell it tax free 6 or 7 years later. And with the huge changes to regulation in favour of tenants it's no wonder many LLs left the market.

I think regulation is a big factor now if you're a LL. There's no protection against bad tenants. It could cost you thousands in legal fees and lost rent to evict a tenant.....thanks to FG.

It's time to put protection on place for LLs too.

I dont have any political affiliations I disagree that FG where responsible for the regs they lead a weak government and every left looney clown was putting the boot into LLs.even that lab tog reag JOS from Limerick who lost her seat said good bye to small LLs on radio, PD of SF said "so what" if LLs subsidize tenants rents, there views where rarely expertly challenged, it is populism in media and politics at the expense of people looking to rent.

But i do blame them for the excessive taxation put on LL that is part responsible for increasing rents back around 2010 when demand started in 2014.
The imposition of USC, PRSI and property tax was supposed to be adsorbed by LLs without any though it may be past on to tenants.

Now we are left with a market that is so fcuked up BTL is not viable as it was before and is part of normal rental markets across the world.
A small portion of BTLs did not work but many did!

Our tenant protections and very long notice periods have made it more difficult for LLs and new tenants coming in and have increased admin, risk, legal advice charges and discrimination avoidance now all needed to avoid prosecution and or compensation liability.

We have a govt quango prepared to keep rent defaulters and anti social tenants in situ for as long as possible to avoid them becoming a council problem.
I am a professional LLs never had any dealings with RTB apart from registration.
I would have a couple of tenants that would be wealthier than me...

DubCount · 25-04-2020 10:27am

overkill602 wrote: »

We have a govt quango prepared to keep rent defaulters and anti social tenants in situ for as long as possible to avoid them becoming a council problem.

This is the fundamental problem with the Irish Property market. We may be facing into a period of declining rents, but until this is addressed, the market will always progress towards expensive rents because this problem discourages residential letting investment and will eventually lead to insufficient supply.

sk8board · 25-04-2020 12:12pm

DubCount wrote: »

This is the fundamental problem with the Irish Property market. We may be facing into a period of declining rents, but until this is addressed, the market will always progress towards expensive rents because this problem discourages residential letting investment and will eventually lead to insufficient supply.

As a LL, I think this is unlikely, for 3 economics reasons:

1. There won’t be mass emigration of people this time around, as every country is in the same boat (and migrants are mostly renters)
2. We don’t build enough houses.
3. Single-property LLs (66% of the total) are continuing to exit the market due to the inherent income/tenant risks on one side, and high taxation on the other.

My own view is that the Gov are happy with no.3, as it removes amateurs from the market and in time the market will have a higher proportion of professional LLs.

handlemaster · 26-04-2020 1:59pm

sk8board wrote: »

As a LL, I think this is unlikely, for 3 economics reasons:

1. There won’t be mass emigration of people this time around, as every country is in the same boat (and migrants are mostly renters)
2. We don’t build enough houses.
3. Single-property LLs (66% of the total) are continuing to exit the market due to the inherent income/tenant risks on one side, and high taxation on the other.

My own view is that the Gov are happy with no.3, as it removes amateurs from the market and in time the market will have a higher proportion of professional LLs.

No3. The professional landlords will it entertain anything out side of the major cities. Who will supply rental property in Tullamore , longford, roscommon , athlone , sligo etc

sk8board · 26-04-2020 2:34pm

handlemaster wrote: »

No3. The professional landlords will it entertain anything out side of the major cities. Who will supply rental property in Tullamore , longford, roscommon , athlone , sligo etc

Professional LLs look at yield %. The calculator decides everything, not location.

Anyone looking at some appealing property in some appealing area, that doesn’t have an appropriate yield, isn’t a LL. they’re just another property price speculator.

e.g accidental LL’s. They rent the house for one of two reasons:
1. They need the property back at some point
2. It will appreciate in value if they hold it

The function of actually being a landlord isn’t a consideration, it’s a nuisance.

edit: I don’t own any property in Dublin City, the yields are terrible for the quality you get (quality = renovations needed, or tenant turnover, not location quality). I have mainly family semi-d’s in the commuter belt areas which have good public transport, preferably trains.
yield (incl renovations etc) needs to be 6% min, for me.
Current blended yield is 7%.

dowhatyoulove · 26-04-2020 4:57pm

Thought I’d update this as I said I would at the start of this thread - I’ve new neighbours moved in today after a rental being on the market for maybe 3 weeks max? Demand is still there - where I live in Kildare there are only 20 rental on daft and it’s been that way the last year as we’ve been tracking it.

Gael23 · 26-04-2020 11:14pm

Airbnb won’t survive Coronavirus so that’s going to have a huge impact on the. Won’t happen immediately but watch out over the next few months

JimmyVik · 27-04-2020 9:53am

overkill602 wrote: »

I dont have any political affiliations I disagree that FG where responsible for the regs they lead a weak government and every left looney clown was putting the boot into LLs.even that lab tog reag JOS from Limerick who lost her seat said good bye to small LLs on radio, PD of SF said "so what" if LLs subsidize tenants rents, there views where rarely expertly challenged, it is populism in media and politics at the expense of people looking to rent.

But i do blame them for the excessive taxation put on LL that is part responsible for increasing rents back around 2010 when demand started in 2014.
The imposition of USC, PRSI and property tax was supposed to be adsorbed by LLs without any though it may be past on to tenants.

Now we are left with a market that is so fcuked up BTL is not viable as it was before and is part of normal rental markets across the world.
A small portion of BTLs did not work but many did!

Our tenant protections and very long notice periods have made it more difficult for LLs and new tenants coming in and have increased admin, risk, legal advice charges and discrimination avoidance now all needed to avoid prosecution and or compensation liability.

We have a govt quango prepared to keep rent defaulters and anti social tenants in situ for as long as possible to avoid them becoming a council problem.
I am a professional LLs never had any dealings with RTB apart from registration.
I would have a couple of tenants that would be wealthier than me...

My bet is that landlords are expected to pay for the coming recession.
You heard it here first.
And in another few years people will be wondering why there are only REITS.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 10:16am

JimmyVik wrote: »

My bet is that landlords are expected to pay for the coming recession.
You heard it here first.
And in another few years people will be wondering why there are only REITS.

Landlords were made pay for the last recession which resulted in rents going above the peak of the previous boom. If landlords are made to pay for this recession, rents will be massive in a few years.

JimmyVik · 27-04-2020 10:31am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Landlords were made pay for the last recession which resulted in rents going above the peak of the previous boom. If landlords are made to pay for this recession, rents will be massive in a few years.

I dont think there is any chance of landlords not being hung out to dry.
Second property tax to make a comeback. USC to increase. Some sort of levy to come in. A special tax especially for landlords, just because they can. Property taxes to increase.

And people will be cheering it on.

Now if they didnt do that they might, just might, encourage some investment, but from what we have seen so far ....
I did the sums before and property investment is definitely not for me.
But I also see the effect it has on the long term market and thats not good at all.

All you will have left shortly are REITs. And they certainly need to be paying proper taxes.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 11:31am

While landlords took some pain after the last recession it was ultimately the tenants who end up paying for it in the form of higher rents. If the same thing is tried again, it will push out overexposed landlords and accidental landlords and force rents to go higher than before.

JimmyVik · 27-04-2020 11:45am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

While landlords took some pain after the last recession it was ultimately the tenants who end up paying for it in the form of higher rents. If the same thing is tried again, it will push out overexposed landlords and accidental landlords and force rents to go higher than before.

Rent controls are in on the ground floor this time. There will be very little raising of rents from eventual floor they fall to.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 11:47am

JimmyVik wrote: »

Rent controls are in on the ground floor this time. There will be very little raising of rents from eventual floor they fall to.

As rents fall the controls will be lifted and won't be put back.

JimmyVik · 27-04-2020 12:06pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

As rents fall the controls will be lifted and won't be put back.

I very much doubt that. Rent controls wont be lifted but will allow rents to fall. I could be wrong, but I think thats what will happen.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 12:18pm

JimmyVik wrote: »

I very much doubt that. Rent controls wont be lifted but will allow rents to fall. I could be wrong, but I think thats what will happen.

The rent controls were originally temporary for 3 years. They were then extended for a further 3 years. When that second period expires, if rents have fallen there be no legal justification for retaining the rent controls. In addition the government will be happy to be written of rent controls because they don't work. As it turns out, the rent controls will be due for renewal at a time rents are in fact falling. No way will they stay.

awec · 27-04-2020 12:24pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The rent controls were originally temporary for 3 years. They were then extended for a further 3 years. When that second period expires, if rents have fallen there be no legal justification for retaining the rent controls. In addition the government will be happy to be written of rent controls because they don't work. As it turns out, the rent controls will be due for renewal at a time rents are in fact falling. No way will they stay.

I'm not so sure. The rent controls are good politics with a large slice of voters. The most recent election saw FG get a bit of a slap on the wrist regarding housing, not sure they'll be too quick to ditch rent controls.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 12:28pm

awec wrote: »

I'm not so sure. The rent controls are good politics with a large slice of voters. The most recent election saw FG get a bit of a slap on the wrist regarding housing, not sure they'll be too quick to ditch rent controls.

With rents falling, it will be different. The rent controls are actually causing vacancies, with landlords unwilling to rent in case they get locked into a rent cap.
A falling rental market will be trumpeted as evidence that the rent caps have worked with one mighty bound they would be free.

Hubertj · 27-04-2020 12:29pm

awec wrote: »

I'm not so sure. The rent controls are good politics with a large slice of voters. The most recent election saw FG get a bit of a slap on the wrist regarding housing, not sure they'll be too quick to ditch rent controls.

i suppose a lot will depend on the extent to which rents fall.... Will they drop 20% over the next 12- 24 months? That would bring them back to 2015 / 2016 levels? Does that deter development?

awec · 27-04-2020 12:30pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

With rents falling, it will be different.

With rents falling the current controls will be redundant, but I still think that it's unlikely they'll go away completely.

If they do, the government will be painted as stripping away tenant protections.

In a market where rents are declining there is little to no downside to just keeping the restrictions. They affect nobody, but give great political cover.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 12:33pm

awec wrote: »

With rents falling the current controls will be redundant, but I still think that it's unlikely they'll go away completely.

If they do, the government will be painted as stripping away tenant protections.

In a market where rents are declining there is little to no downside to just keeping the restrictions. They affect nobody, but give great political cover.

They would be open to legal challenge from landlords who were caught on the hop when h restrictions came in. the government won't want a court case.

awec · 27-04-2020 12:41pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They would be open to legal challenge from landlords who were caught on the hop when h restrictions came in. the government won't want a court case.

On the hop? It’s been how many years now?

Landlords have had plenty of chance for their day in court.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 1:09pm

awec wrote: »

On the hop? It’s been how many years now?

Landlords have had plenty of chance for their day in court.

They might have had a chance to go to court but their argument wouldn't have been as strong. rent controls per se are not unconstitutional but they have to be justified. there would have been some justification if they were temporary and there was rising rent. If they are renewed again with falling rent, then they are permanent and against a background of falling rent, unjustifiable.

Ozark707 · 27-04-2020 1:22pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They might have had a chance to go to court but their argument wouldn't have been as strong. rent controls per se are not unconstitutional but they have to be justified. there would have been some justification if they were temporary and there was rising rent. If they are renewed again with falling rent, then they are permanent and against a background of falling rent, unjustifiable.

If rents are falling doesn't the issue negate itself though? At least until a floor is reached. Politically as someone else pointed out FG were mauled by SF over rents so there is no way they will allow rents to go back up (much) after this floor is established.

From what I can see properties are clearing once a price which seems to be about 10% below the market so it seems even in lockdown there is movement in the rental market.

Blut2 · 27-04-2020 1:32pm

FG's biggest 'loss' group in the recent election was a huge number of middle class voters in their 20s/30s/40s who would traditionally have been FG voters, but who voted for SF or others purely on the basis of the rental crisis. So there isn't a hope of FG doing anything in the short/medium term that gives the optics of being in favour of landlords (ie things like removing the rent controls), because doing so might permanently solidify the loss of these voters.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 1:32pm

Ozark707 wrote: »

If rents are falling doesn't the issue negate itself though? At least until a floor is reached. Politically as someone else pointed out FG were mauled by SF over rents so there is no way they will allow rents to go back up (much) after this floor is established.

From what I can see properties are clearing once a price which seems to be about 10% below the market so it seems even in lockdown there is movement in the rental market.

There are landlords who were locked in to below market rents. Why should they continue to be locked in as the market falls? The legal argument against the rent controls will strengthen as rents fall. If someone succeeds in a court case it will cause trouble into the future. What has been done up to now has not bee fair and to allow it to continue as is will inevitably brig a challenge.

Ozark707 · 27-04-2020 1:52pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There are landlords who were locked in to below market rents. Why should they continue to be locked in as the market falls? The legal argument against the rent controls will strengthen as rents fall. If someone succeeds in a court case it will cause trouble into the future. What has been done up to now has not bee fair and to allow it to continue as is will inevitably brig a challenge.

Not disagreeing with you but as someone else pointed out a challenge could have been brought previously and wasn't. For the people under the market rate they might not be that interested in taking a challenge if rents came back 15-20% anyway as the differential might be no longer there. What would be the point in taking a challenge for something that the market will not bear anyway?

JimmyVik · 27-04-2020 2:26pm

Ozark707 wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you but as someone else pointed out a challenge could have been brought previously and wasn't. For the people under the market rate they might not be that interested in taking a challenge if rents came back 15-20% anyway as the differential might be no longer there. What would be the point in taking a challenge for something that the market will not bear anyway?

In this country if a single landlord took them to court and lost they could get saddled with astronomical costs. Noone in their right mind would take that risk. Class actions are not allowed.

REITs might have the resources to do this, but why would a REIT do it?

JimmyVik · 27-04-2020 2:32pm

Blut2 wrote: »

FG's biggest 'loss' group in the recent election was a huge number of middle class voters in their 20s/30s/40s who would traditionally have been FG voters, but who voted for SF or others purely on the basis of the rental crisis. So there isn't a hope of FG doing anything in the short/medium term that gives the optics of being in favour of landlords (ie things like removing the rent controls), because doing so might permanently solidify the loss of these voters.

Most people I know who switched to SF did it as a protest vote. They got the fright of their lives when SF got enough seats to go into government.
I dont think any of them will take the chance of voting SF as a protest again

But nobody likes landlords and whoever is in power can bleed them dry and people be delighted.

Claw Hammer · 27-04-2020 2:40pm

Ozark707 wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you but as someone else pointed out a challenge could have been brought previously and wasn't. For the people under the market rate they might not be that interested in taking a challenge if rents came back 15-20% anyway as the differential might be no longer there. What would be the point in taking a challenge for something that the market will not bear anyway?

Landlords got legal advice and didn't take action because of the prevailing conditions. If the prevailing conditions change then the advice has to change. One of the landlord associations may well be willing to sponsor a challenge if there is more positive legal advice available.

shenanagans · 27-04-2020 4:34pm

JimmyVik wrote: »

Most people I know who switched to SF did it as a protest vote. They got the fright of their lives when SF got enough seats to go into government.
I dont think any of them will take the chance of voting SF as a protest again

But nobody likes landlords and whoever is in power can bleed them dry and people be delighted.

Most of us need to rent at some stage in our life. The notion everyone hates landlords is absurd. There's plenty of decent fair landlords out there.

Some decent regulation to protect landlords might tempt more to stay in the market. If all small LLs are run out with your 'bleed them dry' outlook.......you see where you'll end up with professional landlords only. Vulture funds buying up blocks of apartments etc.....they want big profit.

Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

Comments