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
No more 4% rent increases
Options
Comments
-
Claw Hammer wrote: »Most pre-63's have coin meters or individual electric accounts. You are referring to co-living units which may or may not have been provided pre-63.
I dont own a pre-63 myself but the ones i visited has a single electricity bill where the ll added those bills to rent.
What you describe is a much better set up0 -
I always love how people talk of "good" tenants. What people tend to mean is a tenant that does what they are legally required to do like pay rent on time. Absent of bad tenant behaviour does not make you a "good" tenant just normal, a good tenant goes above and beyond minimal requirements.
Rent in a normal market is higher than a mortgage for the same property. That is how renting anything works. Go to Sam hire and rent equipment if you rent for a month you could likely have bought the equipment. They factor in maintence,repair, safety certification etc... hence it is more expensive than buying. Rentals of property are similar as things like appliances are provided by landlords as is the law.
LPT is an expense on rental and is/will be added to rent. It was another fudge as it was meant for the residents to pay but they decided to make it the landlord to keep the public happy. Public were always going to have to pay it.
Lots of wishful thinking that landlords will take on more expenses and standards while reducing rent. Nope rents have to go up when costs increase as this is basic economics.
The government were vicious to landlords during the crash adding expenses when rent was falling. The public loved it and ignored warnings on later effects on rent. No surprise at all rents went up and will continue up. Not simply a supply issue but barrier to enter and disincentives to being a landlord.
The public have a huge responsibility for the policies brought in which make the housing market worse.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »I always love how people talk of "good" tenants. What people tend to mean is a tenant that does what they are legally required to do like pay rent on time. Absent of bad tenant behaviour does not make you a "good" tenant just normal, a good tenant goes above and beyond minimal requirements.
Rent in a normal market is higher than a mortgage for the same property. That is how renting anything works. Go to Sam hire and rent equipment if you rent for a month you could likely have bought the equipment. They factor in maintence,repair, safety certification etc... hence it is more expensive than buying. Rentals of property are similar as things like appliances are provided by landlords as is the law.
LPT is an expense on rental and is/will be added to rent. It was another fudge as it was meant for the residents to pay but they decided to make it the landlord to keep the public happy. Public were always going to have to pay it.
Lots of wishful thinking that landlords will take on more expenses and standards while reducing rent. Nope rents have to go up when costs increase as this is basic economics.
The government were vicious to landlords during the crash adding expenses when rent was falling. The public loved it and ignored warnings on later effects on rent. No surprise at all rents went up and will continue up. Not simply a supply issue but barrier to enter and disincentives to being a landlord.
The public have a huge responsibility for the policies brought in which make the housing market worse.
Actually I describe good tenant as someone who will help maintain the property, doing much of what is the landlords responsibility.
But now that you mention it a normal tenant (the massive majority) also mean an LL does well.0 -
I dont own a pre-63 myself but the ones i visited has a single electricity bill where the ll added those bills to rent.
What you describe is a much better set up
I have a pre 63 and it has had separate meters for 50 years. In Dublin it is certainly rare for older rented property include electricity. Only see it with recent upgraded pre 63 where they don't want the metre issues so include it that way due to electrical installation costs0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »Actually I describe good tenant as someone who will help maintain the property, doing much of what is the landlords responsibility.
But now that you mention it a normal tenant (the massive majority) also mean an LL does well.
It isnt though. i have had requests to replace light bulbs, replace a double bed with a king as his feet stuck out at the end, taps with no leaks needed to be fixed as they were a tiny bit loose etc.
Most tenants think they are good tenants when in reality, a good tenant, is someone that doesnt waste a ll time and money, only calls when necessary, maintains a good relationship with a ll and provides flexibility/leaway when jobs need to be carried out. Tenants doing jobs themself can be a issue depending on how big the job is. Iv had tenants fix boilers, electricals without my permission which i later had to fix myself with a greater cost due to the mess the tenant created.0 -
Advertisement
-
If they are creaming, it then You should buy a place a rent it. Since its a sure bet.
/QUOTE]
Would definitely do it if i was in the financial position.
Mind you I have friends that have done it and they call it and easy part paid house - the handy retirement fund.
Guess its whether you expect a wage or just to pay part of your nest egg...0 -
It isnt though. i have had requests to replace light bulbs, replace a double bed with a king as his feet stuck out at the end, taps with no leaks needed to be fixed as they were a tiny bit loose etc.
Most tenants think they are good tenants when in reality, a good tenant, is someone that doesnt waste a ll time and money, only calls when necessary, maintains a good relationship with a ll and provides flexibility/leaway when jobs need to be carried out. Tenants doing jobs themself can be a issue depending on how big the job is. Iv had tenants fix boilers, electricals without my permission which i later had to fix myself with a greater cost due to the mess the tenant created.
Anyone doing works that should be carried out by a registered body is bad - but seems we generally agree on a good tenant.
Bad landlords are as common as bad tenants to be fair and both are wrong.
I have had good relations with any LL I rented from except one - Boiler went in November and she would not get it fixed until Feb - moved out eventually but gave her months to fix it. Turned out later she never paid the guy who did the job.
I guess its the trade off between good tenants and max profit
Just to note I haven't rented in a few years, no skin in the game.0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »Actually I describe good tenant as someone who will help maintain the property, doing much of what is the landlords responsibility.
But now that you mention it a normal tenant (the massive majority) also mean an LL does well.
You will need to say what are these "maintenance" a "good" tenant is doing. Been at this a long time and found tenants do more damage than good with their "maintenance" and resulted it not being informed of serious issues. That made them bad tenants and cost lots of money to fix.
One tenant "fixed" the roof but actually was sending the water down the neighbours external wall. They were very unhappy about the damp issue he caused. So many rewiring jobs done that were dangerous.
A good tenant i had wanted the bathroom fixed. She sourced a contractor and I paid and agreed to design.0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »Anyone doing works that should be carried out by a registered body is bad - but seems we generally agree on a good tenant.
Bad landlords are as common as bad tenants to be fair and both are wrong.
I have had good relations with any LL I rented from except one - Boiler went in November and she would not get it fixed until Feb - moved out eventually but gave her months to fix it. Turned out later she never paid the guy who did the job.
I guess its the trade off between good tenants and max profit
Just to note I haven't rented in a few years, no skin in the game.
how do you know " bad landlords are as common as bad tenants " ?
1. the system defends bad tenants , it does not defend bad landlords , if tenants dont know their rights in terms of reporting bad landlords , its up to them to inform themselves
2. the media never report on bad tenants , they never shut up about alleged bad landlords0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »If they are creaming, it then You should buy a place a rent it. Since its a sure bet.
Would definitely do it if i was in the financial position.
Mind you I have friends that have done it and they call it and easy part paid house - the handy retirement fund.
Guess its whether you expect a wage or just to pay part of your nest egg...
If its self financing, financial position would be irrelevant.
You take a loan and its pays itself in 30yrs.
If you truly believed that and courage of your convictions, you would just do it.
Unless of course its not that simple.0 -
Advertisement
-
If its self financing, financial position would be irrelevant.
You take a loan and its pays itself in 30yrs.
If you truly believed that and courage of your convictions, you would just do it.
Unless of course its not that simple.
Yes being mortgaged already has no relevance... Haha.
Save the nonsense, if you are the lucky position to have multiple properties then Kudos.
I would love to be in that place, leave it empty and you make money for goodness sake. Such moaning.0 -
What will the likely increase be allowed in October ?
We won't know until the fine print is published, but I guess that could depend on the date of the last rent increase.
If the previous rent increase was - for example February 2020 - then the new rent review could be the inflation rate from the period of February 2020 to the date the new rent review is submitted (which would be this month to be valid for sometime in October).
A new calculator would have to be published on the RTB website.
Either that, or they just use the annual inflation percentage across the board for convenience.
The % change in the CPI from Jan 2021 to May 2021 is 2.0 %.0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »Yes being mortgaged already has no relevance... Haha.
Save the nonsense, if you are the lucky position to have multiple properties then Kudos.
I would love to be in that place, leave it empty and you make money for goodness sake. Such moaning.
Taking out a mortgage, taking risks with your capital and the headaches/hassle that come along with that is not luck. You are making a calculated decision with your money to try and invest it. I hear a lot of people always saying its lucky if you invest in property or stocks yet they never put in the effort or have the stomach themselves to grow their own nest egg other than playing the complete safe route of saving. No point complaining if you dont try and risk it yourself and the people that do invest should be compensated for said risk.
If the market is growing and prices go up, yes you make money by leaving it empty. What about if you had a mortgage, bought it back in 2006 and left it empty. I dont think they would be doing too well. There is risk involved in tying up capital like this especially in an illiquid asset so dont make it look so easy and black and white.0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »Yes being mortgaged already has no relevance... Haha.
Save the nonsense, if you are the lucky position to have multiple properties then Kudos.
I would love to be in that place, leave it empty and you make money for goodness sake. Such moaning.
Leaving a property empty for 30yrs..
You think no one who started a business or bought a rental doesn't also have their own mortgage?
What you are saying is that you're not willing to take a risk on a sure thing.0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »I think we all agree that the rules need work in relation to bad tenants and damage to property.
But on the other side upping the max a year when you have a good tenant who minds the place can leave an LL creaming it.
Upping the rent by the max per year is a direct result of the measures brought in which cut landlords off at the knees...........I know this because I was caught out for being nice and was financially punished for it. I gave my tenants reductions in their rent three years running because they were brilliant. All around me, everyone else was charging €1500+ for a 2 bed apartments and they were paying €1050 in their last year there. They eventually moved out when they saved enough for a deposit, and they specifically thanked me for the assistance in making that a reality. The chap told me that his friends were paying €1,650 in the development next door, so my two were putting that aside each month in case they had to move out. Anything over the rent amount was saved, and they now have a place of their own.
When they moved out, I was forced to set the rent at €1,090 for year 1, then €1,135, then €1,180 and so on. Being hamstrung by punitive legislation to the tune of €400+ every month for three years is no fun. Then, because the rent was so low, I had a number of people flat out tell me that they didn't believe what I was telling them and that there must be something wrong with the place. Two bad tenants and a few RTB hearings later, and I sold last Autumn.
Best decision I ever made.
The last guy just stopped paying, he'd transfer a couple of hundred quid at random intervals but was short on the (artificially low) rent every month. After going through the RTB process, he agreed to leave in the second week of March last year. Then Covid came to town, ban on evictions, no rent at all for 4 months and the only reason he left is because his son got sick back in France.
And sure why would he want to leave? Free accommodation, €350 into the pocket, not much chance of your airport job coming back any time soon......you'd be a fool not to take advantage. He owed almost €7,000 in back rent. On the last day, when I was collecting the keys, he told me that he had a solution to the debt he owed. When I arrived he handed me a completed HAP form and said I could claim all of the back rent in his name!
Spoke to a solicitor, and they wanted €4,500 up front to try chase him down in France, plus any other fees that they incurred. Pointless exercise, in other words. Sold up two months later.
Any landlord who didn't immediately up their rent to the max allowable at the earliest opportunity every single time is a fool. At least I had the excuse that it came out of the blue. This latest inflation-tracking legislation should have caught nobody by surprise, the writing is on the wall and has been for sometime.0 -
Leaving a property empty for 30yrs..
You think no one who started a business or bought a rental doesn't also have their own mortgage?
What you are saying is that you're not willing to take a risk on a sure thing.
Thats where renting gets someone else to cover a part of the mortgage no?
I am saying If i tried to get a second mortgage a few years after the first i'd be unsuccessful. Gone be the celtic tiger, mind you in time i hope to do just that. And then i can get on the LL gravy train.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Upping the rent by the max per year is a direct result of the measures brought in which cut landlords off at the knees...........I know this because I was caught out for being nice and was financially punished for it. I gave my tenants reductions in their rent three years running because they were brilliant. All around me, everyone else was charging €1500+ for a 2 bed apartments and they were paying €1050 in their last year there. They eventually moved out when they saved enough for a deposit, and they specifically thanked me for the assistance in making that a reality. The chap told me that his friends were paying €1,650 in the development next door, so my two were putting that aside each month in case they had to move out. Anything over the rent amount was saved, and they now have a place of their own.
When they moved out, I was forced to set the rent at €1,090 for year 1, then €1,135, then €1,180 and so on. Being hamstrung by punitive legislation to the tune of €400+ every month for three years is no fun. Then, because the rent was so low, I had a number of people flat out tell me that they didn't believe what I was telling them and that there must be something wrong with the place. Two bad tenants and a few RTB hearings later, and I sold last Autumn.
Best decision I ever made.
The last guy just stopped paying, he'd transfer a couple of hundred quid at random intervals but was short on the (artificially low) rent every month. After going through the RTB process, he agreed to leave in the second week of March last year. Then Covid came to town, ban on evictions, no rent at all for 4 months and the only reason he left is because his son got sick back in France.
And sure why would he want to leave? Free accommodation, €350 into the pocket, not much chance of your airport job coming back any time soon......you'd be a fool not to take advantage. He owed almost €7,000 in back rent. On the last day, when I was collecting the keys, he told me that he had a solution to the debt he owed. When I arrived he handed me a completed HAP form and said I could claim all of the back rent in his name!
Spoke to a solicitor, and they wanted €4,500 up front to try chase him down in France, plus any other fees that they incurred. Pointless exercise, in other words. Sold up two months later.
Any landlord who didn't immediately up their rent to the max allowable at the earliest opportunity every single time is a fool. At least I had the excuse that it came out of the blue. This latest inflation-tracking legislation should have caught nobody by surprise, the writing is on the wall and has been for sometime.
If you look back i agree that the rent limit put landlords in a tough spot with regards to having to max or risk losing out, its the downside of the system implemented to protect.
I also support way better rules around bad tenants.
That said it is a profitable business move in the long run. Way more profitable if you have been in the game a while, sitting on trackers or got property at recession bottom.
Thats just reality, though some would swear they lose my money by the way they type.0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »If you look back i agree that the rent limit put landlords in a tough spot with regards to having to max or risk losing out, its the downside of the system implemented to protect.
I also support way better rules around bad tenants.
That said it is a profitable business move in the long run. Way more profitable if you have been in the game a while, sitting on trackers or got property at recession bottom.
Thats just reality, though some would swear they lose my money by the way they type.
They are losing money and remember the other times they lost money. If you had a business and you suddenly don't get paid you just lost money. If you sell at one profit margin and taxes or expenses go up but you can't move price you lose money. Landlords are no different as it is a business not an occasional charity at the whim of the government0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »Cheaper doesn't mean anything- if a prospective renter has no intention of paying their rent (at all) and instead knows the system and chooses to play the system like a fine fiddle.
There are a cohort out there (admittedly- its only a small cohort)- who have this down to a fine art.
That's a different issue.
I remember the days when you could just walk out of rental and find a cheaper one down the street. People used to do this all the time, if a landlord increased the rent. At that time LLs used to undercut other to get tenants. There were more rentals than tenants.
The issue is supply...0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »Yes being mortgaged already has no relevance... Haha.
Save the nonsense, if you are the lucky position to have multiple properties then Kudos.
I would love to be in that place, leave it empty and you make money for goodness sake. Such moaning.
No, you just have zero experience and think you know more than those who do have experience. Armchair pundit.
I bought a place in the boom to live in. Moved to a different area later and rented it out as it was in neg equity. Current value is still 80k or so lower than what I paid for it.
The rent does not cover the mortgage even now, and it’s in an rpt. I had it rented to friends when that came in, so it’s about 600 euro pm below market rates snd I can neither sell it (have tried this, due to sitting tenants at low rate it cannot be sold) nor can I legally raise the rent to market rate.
It is a drain on me financially. I am not alone in that, some of my peers are the same when they bought in the boom.
I have other properties bought later to offset some of it, but I am in no way creaming it in. Just about breaking even, by doing my own property management , doing my own taxes etc.
I have had tenants call me for lightbulbs, vacuum bags, to empty a mouse trap.
And at the same time I have neighbours here lamenting that they can’t find a place to rent (they have to move out for a year for subsidence problems)
There will always be a need for rentals. Squeezing service providers does absolutely nothing for a quality service0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30614
notAMember wrote: »There will always be a need for rentals. Squeezing service providers does absolutely nothing for a quality service
No, of course it does nothing- the service provider is of course a wonderful scapegoat though- and politicians love scapegoats.
Irish politicians have failed miserably- and rather than own their mistakes, prefer to push the consequences of their actions (and inactions) in others- especially a group who are reviled even more so than politicians.
We have had severe supplyside issues over the past decade- while politicians dithered- and played populist games that simply drove significant numbers of pre-existing landlords from the sector- yet the landlords are the ones who are to blame.
Honesty is a commodity in scarce supply- and ironically, the most honest of the politicians who have called things what they are- are ridiculed and attacked for doing so.
Its a game of the blind leading the blind- where the only difference is the blind person doing the leading is playing a mysterious pipe of enchanting music promising a wonderful destination that quite simply doesn't exist- a la the pide piper - whose actions spell disaster for all those who follow him.
I do not think that Sinn Féin's housing solutions are a magic wand either (and I have read Eoin O'Broin's book)- its an interesting historic look at the housing sector in Ireland and aspirational in nature. Sinn Féin's plans have serious shortcomings- notably a wholly unrealistic costing schedule for building projects in Ireland- which is a fundamental flaw in their plans that they seem incapable of acknowledging. Yet- despite the fundamental failure before they ever get to the first hurdle- they appear to be the only show in town- as the rest of the political cadres refuse on a point of principle to engage in what is a political hot potato- and insist on a continuation of parochial politics (don't get me wrong- SF play the same local games- to a fine art- but at least they have a national plan too- which doesn't involve fairytale pronouncements akin to FG's 40k units per annum).
All I can really suggest is we may the architects of our own mess- but we do not have the will power to acknowledge what must be done (and its not just in the housing sector by any means). FG somewhat acknowledged this when they invited the Troika back for a historic first- a programme for a country not availing of an aid package. Its easier to sell much needed medicine to the Irish public- when/if it is viewed as being doled out by another body- aka so we have a bogeyman in the corner that can be blamed, a scapegoat for whatever pain people feel.
This inability to own our own mistakes, and take charge and drive change on our own without the need for a scapegoat- is one of our massive failings in political life.
We need change- but we can't stomach it- so we kick the can into the long grass and hope it becomes someone else's problem- until such time as we run out of long grass- or have the guts to do a little chopping- and invite the Troika back as a least worse option.
It seems fairly obvious that we're doomed to play games with multicoloured coalitions going forwards- its the only way political numbers are going to add up. Until such time as we own our own mistakes though- we are doomed to play the same tired rhetoric on a loop, without ever resolving anything.0 -
notAMember wrote: »No, you just have zero experience and think you know more than those who do have experience. Armchair pundit.
I bought a place in the boom to live in. Moved to a different area later and rented it out as it was in neg equity. Current value is still 80k or so lower than what I paid for it.
The rent does not cover the mortgage even now, and it’s in an rpt. I had it rented to friends when that came in, so it’s about 600 euro pm below market rates snd I can neither sell it (have tried this, due to sitting tenants at low rate it cannot be sold) nor can I legally raise the rent to market rate.
It is a drain on me financially. I am not alone in that, some of my peers are the same when they bought in the boom.
I have other properties bought later to offset some of it, but I am in no way creaming it in. Just about breaking even, by doing my own property management , doing my own taxes etc.
I have had tenants call me for lightbulbs, vacuum bags, to empty a mouse trap.
And at the same time I have neighbours here lamenting that they can’t find a place to rent (they have to move out for a year for subsidence problems)
There will always be a need for rentals. Squeezing service providers does absolutely nothing for a quality service
Anyone who bought boom and went negative is really in a different position to someone who bought in say recession?
Not sure you can compare anything to buying a property at the height of a bubble that went bust.
If you didn't have the bad investment hanging over your head, how would your financial outlay look?0 -
I’m a member of a local information group on Facebook and a woman advertised that she had a 4 bed ready for renting. She’s requested 6 weeks rent as deposit (so that’s 2 weeks more than a months deposit) and 3 months rent upfront.
There’s loads giving out about her but I see her point in what’s she’s asking for. She’s removing those who would probably struggle to pay the rent on a monthly basis anyway so she’s not wasting there’s or her own time. Bear in mind I live in the north west so I’d say the monthly rent for a 4 bed would be around 700 and as we’ve been locked down, professionals would probably have some savings to cover the upfront costs.
More power to her. She posted that she’s secured a tenant with no complaints.0 -
Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »I’m a member of a local information group on Facebook and a woman advertised that she had a 4 bed ready for renting. She’s requested 6 weeks rent as deposit (so that’s 2 weeks more than a months deposit) and 3 months rent upfront.
There’s loads giving out about her but I see her point in what’s she’s asking for. She’s removing those who would probably struggle to pay the rent on a monthly basis anyway so she’s not wasting there’s or her own time. Bear in mind I live in the north west so I’d say the monthly rent for a 4 bed would be around 700 and as we’ve been locked down, professionals would probably have some savings to cover the upfront costs.
More power to her. She posted that she’s secured a tenant with no complaints.
In fairness anyone can understand someone protecting their investment - only issue with 3 months rent up front is it could be 7.5k in dublin.0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »Anyone who bought boom and went negative is really in a different position to someone who bought in say recession?
Not sure you can compare anything to buying a property at the height of a bubble that went bust.
If you didn't have the bad investment hanging over your head, how would your financial outlay look?
You could buy stock of a product just as it falls out of popularity and you'd have to sell it out at a loss or wait till it becomes popular again.0 -
Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »I’m a member of a local information group on Facebook and a woman advertised that she had a 4 bed ready for renting. She’s requested 6 weeks rent as deposit (so that’s 2 weeks more than a months deposit) and 3 months rent upfront.
There’s loads giving out about her but I see her point in what’s she’s asking for. She’s removing those who would probably struggle to pay the rent on a monthly basis anyway so she’s not wasting there’s or her own time. Bear in mind I live in the north west so I’d say the monthly rent for a 4 bed would be around 700 and as we’ve been locked down, professionals would probably have some savings to cover the upfront costs.
More power to her. She posted that she’s secured a tenant with no complaints.
OF course there are loads of people giving out.
Just if you could ask of the ones complaining when was the last time they give their home to a stranger ?0 -
handlemaster wrote: »OF course there are loads of people giving out.
Just if you could ask of the ones complaining when was the last time they give their home to a stranger ?
You’re preaching to the converted. Some mad yoke even said it doesn’t matter if the place would be handed back trashed that it’s all the LLs fault for charging them to live there anyway.
I’m keeping my house for myself and for when family come over to visit. I would much rather pay a set tax every year for a second home. It’s far cheaper than the affect the bad tenant I did have had on my stress levels and ability to function day to day. Going to bed every night and waking up every morning NOT thinking about him ….. priceless.0 -
FileNotFound wrote: »In fairness anyone can understand someone protecting their investment - only issue with 3 months rent up front is it could be 7.5k in dublin.
It's understandable why someone would want to do it, but it's also pretty discriminating. IRES have a similar policy of requiring 2 months deposit which is a bit mad imo, especially when the place I rented from them most recently came unfurnished. Most people who are renting don't have access to enough cash to pay 3 months up front. But of course, for the landlord as an investor, several months of cash now is worth more than several months of cash later.
I think the best solution to this is to establish a system similar to what has happened in other countries, where there is some state body who manage and hold deposits as a third party and can arbitrate in the event of a dispute. Otherwise it's absolutely in an LLs interest to ask for more.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »You’re preaching to the converted. Some mad yoke even said it doesn’t matter if the place would be handed back trashed that it’s all the LLs fault for charging them to live there anyway.
I’m keeping my house for myself and for when family come over to visit. I would much rather pay a set tax every year for a second home. It’s far cheaper than the affect the bad tenant I did have had on my stress levels and ability to function day to day. Going to bed every night and waking up every morning NOT thinking about him ….. priceless.
The one you refer to wouldn't be shy about the tax payer picking up her lifestyle bill. I can't imagine a working woman coming to the conclusion you have quoted above.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement