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?

Options
1…7273757778…112

Comments

  • Options
    #2222
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Mr.S wrote: »
    Short term, yes they’ll probably drop due to the non-existent demand.

    Long term, after all this goes back to normal - we’re still going to have a supply issue and rent prices will climb again.

    Let’s assume life goes back to normal in September, why would rent prices continue to drop massively? The “bounce back” would presumably be quick and strong.

    Not that I want prices to drop at all, I am a fedted interest, however the reason they may not climb again is simple, working from home isn't going anywhere no matter if some bosses want it or not, so more people moving out of the capital and jot going there at all in the First place, conversey this is pushing prices up elsewhere


  • Options
    #2223
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Dav010 wrote: »
    In any market, if you want prices to fall, you increase supply, not reduce it. If memory serves me correctly, I remember Matt Cooper saying on the Tonight show that in the year after the RPZ was introduced, the average increase in Dublin during that year was 14%, which was a huge increase that wasn’t supposed to happen and was linked to LLs getting the rents up before the new regs began to be enforced by the RTB..

    Thanks for that. I must remember this next time someone says LLs were penalised for not increasing rents to market rates before the introduction of RPZs.


  • Options
    #2224
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,025 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Thanks for that. I must remember this next time someone says LLs were penalised for not increasing rents to market rates before the introduction of RPZs.

    You are not quite getting it, the LLs being penalised financially are the ones who didn’t increase rent to market rate prior to regs being introduced and obeyed the legislation, not the ones who ignored the regs and bumped rents higher than the 4%.They are locked in at a lower rate than market rate. Jeez.


  • Options
    #2225
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Dav010 wrote: »
    the LLs being penalised financially are the ones who didn’t increase rent to market rate

    And how many of those were there? Because if rents in Dublin increased by 14% in the year after RPZs were introduced, as you claim, there can't have been many of them, if any at all.


  • Options
    #2226
    whatnext
    Registered Users Posts: 915 ✭✭✭whatnext


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    And how many of those were there? Because if rents in Dublin increased by 14% in the year after RPZs were introduced, as you claim, there can't have been many of them, if any at all.

    Those increases coincided with the RIETs introducing the first stocks of new housing stock to the market in years. These were not rent increases predominantly as it was new stock.

    Also as a side note a large number of the REITs rentals prices are not directly comparable as some offer an all in rental price. Eg utilities and broadband included in some instances. Other things such as concierge on site, gyms etc have to be factored in.

    To fail to acknowledge that stats can be bent so suit any argument is an act of stupidity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2227
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    whatnext wrote: »
    Those increases coincided with the RIETs introducing the first stocks of new housing stock to the market in years. These were not rent increases predominantly as it was new stock.

    That's not what the person I was replying to said. They're claiming the increases in 2017 were "was linked to LLs getting the rents up before the new regs".


  • Options
    #2228
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That's not what the person I was replying to said. They're claiming the increases in 2017 were "was linked to LLs getting the rents up before the new regs".

    My guess, both are correct.


  • Options
    #2229
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭The Student


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I'm not ignoring market principles; I completely understand them. I'm just not worshipping at their altar and putting them above everything else.

    You are. The aim of a business is to make money. You cant call it a business when it favours a tenant then say it's not a business when it favours the landlord.

    The reason the rental market is the way it is, is because of govt intervention nothing more nothing less. Landlords would have looked after good tenants. Instead the rpz's were introduced, the rtb was introduced without any real power to evict troublesome tenants.

    What did you expect would happen? That landlords would not react?


  • Options
    #2230
    whatnext
    Registered Users Posts: 915 ✭✭✭whatnext


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That's not what the person I was replying to said. They're claiming the increases in 2017 were "was linked to LLs getting the rents up before the new regs".

    You were barking on about 14% increases after the introduction of RPZs. That’s what I responded to. If you don’t take the context of a statement, statistic or situation into account, why should I or anyone else for that matter, when debating with you?


  • Options
    #2231
    PommieBast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    And how many of those were there? Because if rents in Dublin increased by 14% in the year after RPZs were introduced, as you claim, there can't have been many of them, if any at all.
    The joy of statistics. Huge numbers of the cheapest places left the market, so Dublin's average rise was busting 4% even after the RPZs came into force.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2232
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Graham wrote: »
    My guess, both are correct.

    You might be right, but the problem is it's all guesswork. There's very little in the way of verifiable information being put forward.
    whatnext wrote: »
    You were barking on about 14% increases after the introduction of RPZs. That’s what I responded to. If you don’t take the context of a statement, statistic or situation into account, why should I or anyone else for that matter, when debating with you?

    At least we're both agreeing that you're taking me out of context.

    You clearly have an issue with the claim being made. So I suggest you take this up with Dav10 because they're the one making the claim, not me.
    PommieBast wrote: »
    The joy of statistics. Huge numbers of the cheapest places left the market, so Dublin's average rise was busting 4% even after the RPZs came into force.

    What statistics? No one has provided any statistics, beyond a claim by Dav10 that rents in Dublin rose by 14% due to RPZ. And even that's being challenged.

    Let's start actually seeing some stats and figures before we worry about the dangers of them.


  • Options
    #2233
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    LLs didn't need motivation to increase rents. That was clearly already happening. That's why these measures and those prior to them were introduced in the first place: rent, as a whole, were increasing at an excessive rate.

    Excessive rent increases cause RPZs, not the other way around. If people don't want the latter, then the surest way to avoid them is to address the former.

    RPZ is a knee jerk reaction to rising rents due to poor supply. As it doesn't fix the supply issue, it didn't stop price rises.

    Excessive rent is due to lack of supply and lack of competition. We aren't fixing that.


  • Options
    #2234
    Ozark707
    Registered Users Posts: 942 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    beauf wrote: »
    RPZ is a knee jerk reaction to rising rents due to poor supply. As it doesn't fix the supply issue, it didn't stop price rises.

    Excessive rent is due to lack of supply and lack of competition. We aren't fixing that.

    Short of some extreme measure that is not something which can be fixed in the short term though. You saw that SF rode the wave of the younger generation being severely impacted by rental costs. if there had not of been RPZ where would rents have ended up?


  • Options
    #2235
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    Short of some extreme measure that is not something which can be fixed in the short term though. You saw that SF rode the wave of the younger generation being severely impacted by rental costs. if there had not of been RPZ where would rents have ended up?

    We've had the issue for over two decades. Not sure what's short term about it.

    The problems with RPZ not reducing rents is well known.


  • Options
    #2236
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    Short of some extreme measure that is not something which can be fixed in the short term though. You saw that SF rode the wave of the younger generation being severely impacted by rental costs. if there had not of been RPZ where would rents have ended up?

    They would be lower now if it had not been for the RPZ. A few people were spared rent increases but many were forced to pay more. Now that the market is falling the RPZs are stopping the fall happening more rapidly.


  • Options
    #2237
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The lack of supply in certain areas, sectors also.


  • Options
    #2238
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,025 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Though I know this article is not about accommodation, it probably will have an indirect effect on it. Microsoft are the first tech company that I have read (there may be others) who have stated that employees currently wfh will be returning to their offices when Government rules are lifted, along with 200 new employees.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.rte.ie/amp/1179829/


  • Options
    #2239
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    alias no.9 wrote: »
    If there are controls, they should be applied equitably rather saying well Johnny has been doing 110km/h past the school for years now so he's grand, leave him off but the next car that comes over the brow of the hill will get a ticket regardless of how fast they're going.

    All tenancies are required to be registered so there is a record of monthly rents, all registered tenancies must have a valid BER which also records the floor area of the unit. How difficult would it be to compile that data into a benchmark rent for areas/regions on a €/SqM basis with adjustment for BER? Use that as the benchmark for any controls rather than rewarding the assholes who were taking the piss. Alternatively, scrap the controls and just change the tax system such that once you go over a certain threshold based on the benchmark, the tax rate steps up.

    Thats the problem
    It may be required but it does not always happen
    As for BER ratings check DAFT


  • Options
    #2240
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Dav010 wrote: »
    It is not, nor has it ever been the responsibility of private landlords to provide affordable housing.

    By introducing measures to limit the market when rents were rising, they have had the counterproductive effect of increasing the numbers of LLs leaving the market and stifling rent reductions as demand fell.

    In any market, if you want prices to fall, you increase supply, not reduce it. If memory serves me correctly, I remember Matt Cooper saying on the Tonight show that in the year after the RPZ was introduced, the average increase in Dublin during that year was 14%, which was a huge increase that wasn’t supposed to happen and was linked to LLs getting the rents up before the new regs began to be enforced by the RTB.

    Rents should be dropping like a stone, not just new lets, but across the board as demand has sharply declined, yet the latest Daft figures should a decline of .8% on the same period in 2019, that should not happen. But LLs would prefer to leave a flat empty or possibly give a free month or two in rent as some claim rather than reduce rent knowing that the max increase when demand rises, is 4% going forward.


    I can just see the minister for housing in his office now.
    He is thinking.
    Hmmm I will introduce legislation where landlords can drop their rent as much as they like and then bring it back up in a couple of years to the level it is at now.

    Then he rubs his hands and thinks to himself that then i'll bring in legislation in 2 years time to only allow them to bring it back up at a rate of 0.5% per year. HA ha. I'll get those landlords.


  • Options
    #2241
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    https://www.thejournal.ie/eviction-ban-5277742-Nov2020/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2242
    thefridge2006
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭thefridge2006


    brisan wrote: »
    https://www.thejournal.ie/eviction-ban-5277742-Nov2020/

    kickin the can down the road. What will this mean for landlords who aren't getting rent to pay their mortgage?


  • Options
    #2243
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,524 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I can just see the minister for housing in his office now.
    He is thinking.
    Hmmm I will introduce legislation where landlords can drop their rent as much as they like and then bring it back up in a couple of years to the level it is at now.

    Then he rubs his hands and thinks to himself that then i'll bring in legislation in 2 years time to only allow them to bring it back up at a rate of 0.5% per year. HA ha. I'll get those landlords.


    Not likely. This is long term thinking. (Even if only 2 years)

    We don't do longterm thinking. We go for what ever feels good today, and damn the future.


  • Options
    #2244
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Lots of auction properties between now and April. March will mark a full year so plenty of defaulters.


  • Options
    #2245
    AssetBacked2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭AssetBacked2


    thefridge2006 wrote: »
    kickin the can down the road. What will this mean for landlords who aren't getting rent to pay their mortgage?

    FFG are going to shaft them is my guess.


  • Options
    #2246
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    We don't do longterm thinking. We go for what ever feels good today, and damn the future.

    if you read the comments on the article you can see ppl these days want policy to suit their own emotions and they dont seem to think the policy needs to adhere to any principals of logic. One guy complains about his tenants not paying rent and the usual assumption creating narrative begins. I fear for the future TBH


  • Options
    #2247
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    AssetBacked2 wrote: »
    FFG are going to shaft them is my guess.

    Shaft them again...


  • Options
    #2248
    AssetBacked2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭AssetBacked2


    beauf wrote: »
    Shaft them again...

    Exactly.

    The problem is populism.

    In 6 months, it will be pitted as greedy landlords versus struggling tenants who couldn't pay their rent during covid. We all know which side the government will go for.


  • Options
    #2249
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I think we all know tenants needed help. No issue with that.

    Just they did nothing for LLs. I think if your tenant rent was paused, some sort of reciprocal arrange for LLs who needed it should have been put in place.
    Just a mortgage holiday may not be enough. If the Mortgage when it restarts it unsustainable, then you may lose that rental out of the market.


  • Options
    #2250
    PommieBast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    beauf wrote: »
    If the Mortgage when it restarts it unsustainable, then you may lose that rental out of the market.
    From memory even Threshold has admitted that the number one cause of homelessness is landlords selling up. Pretty ironic given that they actively encourage the sort of tenant militancy that is driving LL's to stampede for the exit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2251
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Well if thats a problem, its "their" problem.

    This thread was about reduction in rents. The reports seem to indicate that has happened. Then people will argue they don't believe the report. So its seems no matter what happens no one is happy regardless.


Advertisement