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

Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

178101213112

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭overkill602


    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...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭DubCount


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭sk8board


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭sk8board


    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%.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭dowhatyoulove


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Administrators Posts: 53,127 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    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?


  • Administrators Posts: 53,127 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators Posts: 53,127 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,861 ✭✭✭Blut2


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 896 ✭✭✭shenanagans


    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.


Advertisement