JJJackal wrote: » I dont think you always see the difference in price for the interior and insulation in ireland
mcsean2163 wrote: » Interesting, REIT still seems to be doing ok... [url]httPs://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/hibernia-reit-says-5-5-of-rent-due-unpaid-for-current-quarter-1.4300052?mode=amp[/url]
Ozark707 wrote: On the residential front it has held up very well for them as well (95%). I suppose the bigger issue is whether some of their existing tenants would look to secure better (i.e. cheaper) accommodation as leases expire. From what I have seen the REITs charge a pretty penny so if they have tenants who have seen that there is now much better value out there it could lead to some interesting conversations. I can't see the REITs giving a sizeable reduction to their tenants.
Sarn wrote: As far as I know, the additional 5% is only for contracts signed after the 23rd July on new builds. I think there are slightly different criteria for self-builds.
Villa05 wrote: » The minister mentioned it was on drawdown of mortgage after 23rd Newstalk 11am interview
cubatahavana wrote: It is really difficult to organize more than 4-6 viewings per week, and that's only if you're lucky and have mortgage approval in place. Saw a couple of houses this week that were in disastrous state inside and still asking for nearly 700k with ratings lower than D both of them. How do they think they'll sell when new builds with similar sqm and MUCH better rating are selling for at least 50k less in the area and with, is beyond my comprehension.
Villa05 wrote: » If reits are trying to hoover up those long term social housing leases. You and me will be involuntarily guaranteeing there profitability for generations to come
Villa05 wrote: » Why would you waste time viewing houses that you clearly have eliminated based on information that would be on the property listing
Ozark707 wrote: » Of course, I expect to see LOTS of this going forward.
Assetbacked wrote: » If this starts happening in lieu of the government building then it's time for us all to get to grips with O'Broin's book on housing! Guranateed policy to ensure SF gain in the next election as it further reduces the supply to the private rental market since the state competes with private individuals.
cubatahavana wrote: » I'm 99% sure I'll be getting a new build. 10 years structural insurance, very good rating and no smell of piss inside
wassie wrote: » 10 year structural warranty is a marketing gimmick and not an advantage to buy new over old. Read the actual T&Cs of the product and you might be surprised how restrictive making a claim is. And the cost will be built into the price you pay.
cubatahavana wrote: » It is really difficult to organize more than 4-6 viewings per week, and that's only if you're lucky and have mortgage approval in place. Saw a couple of houses this week that were in disastrous state inside and still asking for nearly 700k with ratings lower than D both of them. How do they think they'll sell when new builds with similar sqm and MUCH better rating are selling for at least 50k less in the area and with, is beyond my comprehension. I'm 99% sure I'll be getting a new build. 10 years structural insurance, very good rating and no smell of piss inside
JimmyVik wrote: » BER wouldnt bother me in the least buying a house. Experience tells me it can be brought up inexpensively. And bringing it up doesnt actually save you as much as people think it does ion fuel. To me a low BER is great as it frightens buyers who dont actually know anything about how a BER is calculated away.
Cyrus wrote: » To a point You can get an e to a c3 maybe but beyond that it’s expensive
JimmyVik wrote: » Renovated plenty of properties. Cheap enough to get it up before selling. The BER system in Ireland is a bit of a joke tbh. Really have to laugh at people paying 10s of thousands to try and save a few hundred euro a year.
JimmyVik wrote: » True. As people who had pyrite issues will all testify. Homebond. What a laugh too.
cubatahavana wrote: » Well, I prefer to live in a home with some form of sustainable energy and that reduces energy waste to a minimum. In houses that I’ve seen with a low D and F rating, you can feel the cold and dampness when you walk in. Not to say that all are like that, but the two I’ve seen were. As well, if I can pay 100 quid for energy per month instead of 300, that’s a benefit in my books No need to use more fuel and generate more CO2 if I can avoid it. As well, for me going through long renovations is a pain in the ass. Some people like knocking all down and rebuild, I’m not one of them.
awec wrote: » The difference between an A and a B may not be massive, but the difference between and A and a C/D/E/F/G is enormous and will definitely not be cheap to fix. An F/G rated house you may as well be sitting outside. These aren't problems you're going to be solving by sticking in efficient bulbs around the house.
Bass Reeves wrote: » We buy 500kgs smokeless nuggets and I cut about 2-3 small car trailerloads of timber (seasoned).
Bass Reeves wrote: » I have heard 1-2 people complaining about the electricity bill with heat pumps. A lot of BER rating has to do with carbon not with saving on fuel costs.
mariaalice wrote: » The low running costs and convenience of the A/B rated house is always going be better for some epically if they are both working full time, an older house with a bigger garden, better located or a house with character is always going to be what some people want as well. It not as simple as one is better than the other.
cubatahavana wrote: » I understand, but some of these homes carry a renovation cost of 100k on top of the price. I guess it's not for me if I can buy a much more energy efficient home for less money. I don't care too much about the garden size. I understand that that's just my opinion
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/19a7a778b727ad07a3bbcea8101c61b3.svg)
