fliball123 wrote: » Is there some other way (besides covid) of someone staying in a rented property for longer?
Pelezico wrote: » Big article in Indo today says house prices will increase due to fewer builds and large savings. Covid is certainly cruel with an adjacent article suggesting that 25% of people are really struggling.
An original estimate for 26,000 housing completions this year has been cut to just 15,000 – around a quarter less than were completed during last year’s lockdowns. "Even that might be on the optimistic side,” Prof McQuinn said.
JimmyVik wrote: » Thats the most they can stay before you have to go to the RTB. After that they can stay a couple of years before a landlord can finally get rid of them. They pay no penalty for this service The landlord does. If SF have there way, they'll be allowed to stay forever. Someone buying a house in another thread yesterday cant proceed because the tenants wont move out of the house.
tombliboo83 wrote: » Very well for McWilliams but rent is killing people right now, so much so that it is far cheaper for many to pay over the odds if your mortgage is 25% cheaper than rent.
fliball123 wrote: » I thought the most they could stay was for 224 and thats only if the tenant is in the house 8+ years . Is there some other way (besides covid) of someone staying in a rented property for longer?https://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-your-landlord-may-end-your-tenancy/
fliball123 wrote: Tax payers yes renters ehhh well I think the current system favours a lot of tenants its very hard to evict someone who is a nightmare tenant these days. There needs to be a complete overhaul that helps tenants and landlords and stops giving advantages to those on both sides who try to take advantage
JimmyVik wrote: » I know several landlords who are well over two years now trying to get tenants out who dont want to leave. I know covid is an issue now, but even before covide people were taking 2 years plus to evict tenants who would not comply with the notice to leave.
fliball123 wrote: » I think the most is 8 months if your there for a long period of time and of course there are no evictions during covid but once this is lifted I reckon tenants who acted the b0ll0x during covid will be given their marching orders
Villa05 wrote: » This further disadvantages renters and taxpayers which furthers the requirement for them to have a voice and input in the determining of housing policy
JimmyVik wrote: » Not for about 2 years if you dont feel like moving
fliball123 wrote: Yeah but people need to understand if they do take the risk of buying then its very hard for the banks to take the property off them if they fall on hard times....Hardly the same when your renting if you stop paying the landlord give you notice and your gone ...
fliball123 wrote: » Yeah but people need to understand if they do take the risk of buying then its very hard for the banks to take the property off them if they fall on hard times....Hardly the same when your renting if you stop paying the landlord gives you notice and your gone ...
Villa05 wrote: » That's why they call it the rental trap. Every good bubble has a firm stick to beat you into submission. I'd agree with McWilliams advise, it's an absolutely awful time to be buying. Could the wfh cohort protect themselves somewhat by temporarily renting in a lower rent area. Definitely make sure your registered to vote as this is a 90 to 99% government created mess If only there was a way to unite all renters and citizens who believe these issues are of paramount importance. This would create a large voting bloc that could challenge these policies
Wanderer78 wrote: McWilliams recommending people not to bother buying now, due to these conditions, he's probably right to, brutal time for buyers
tombliboo83 wrote: Very well for McWilliams but rent is killing people right now, so much so that it is far cheaper for many to pay over the odds if your mortgage is 25% cheaper than rent.
Wanderer78 wrote: » McWilliams recommending people not to bother buying now, due to these conditions, he's probably right to, brutal time for buyers
Pelezico wrote: Big article in Indo today says house prices will increase due to fewer builds and large savings.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » “Some journalists” - Killian Woods is probably the best reporter on housing in the country!
Marius34 wrote: » 1) Hotel is not same as Long term rentals. 2) This is an old news, and you trust to much in those numbers provided by some journalists. 3) We are in Covid lockdown times, whatever vacancy numbers is now in city center, it will go down ones lockdowns are over.
PropQueries wrote: Let’s put the cost of these long term leases to the taxpayer in perspective. Herbert Hill in Dundrum’s lease is up to €3,000 per month per apartment or €36,000 per year. There’s 87 apartments in that one block alone.
Yurt! wrote: » When you see Eddie Hobbs jumping up and down trying to get in on the act you know it's a spiv feeding ground. A "new social housing market" - how about that for freshly-minted industry patter. Atrocious deal for the taxpayer, and you can take it that if the shoeshine boy Hobbs trumpeting it, this is now the way of things.https://www.independent.ie/life/home-garden/mark-keenan-is-social-housing-set-to-become-the-new-cape-verde-37483247.html
PropQueries wrote: » When did the Covid lockdowns start? Because the Sunday Business Post reported back in February 2020 that there were “Hundreds of top-end apartments in Dublin are lying empty despite a chronic shortage of rental stock.”. Link to Sunday Business Post article here: https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/the-luxury-gap-hundreds-of-high-end-apartments-lying-empty-across-dublin-ac7da06c
Pelezico wrote: » Your cost per nurse is just plain wrong.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Sure build another one in Grand Canal Dock and leave 81 out of 120 apartments vacant just like the one that's already there...https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/the-luxury-gap-hundreds-of-high-end-apartments-lying-empty-across-dublin-ac7da06c
schmittel wrote: » The beauty of these long term leases from an investors point of view is that the government takes on costs of damages, wear and tear etc.
Pelezico wrote: » It will more than likely end in disaster for investors. I worked in social housing in UK a number of years ago. The returns for big investors are dismal. There were excessive damages and tenants were disengaged and diaempowered. Never again.