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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Landlord evictions 1000 in 2nd Quarter due to selling up

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    I think the problem here is not so much small landlords selling up but rather evictions due to small landlords selling up. There should always be a means removing non-paying tenants or tenants that damage properties but perhaps selling as a justification for evicting where the tenant is at no fault should be examined.

    In the long run we probably need to start moving away from small landlords as one of the main means of providing accommodation and shift towards collective ownership through funds. You want to invest in property in Ireland, you invest in a fund. You want to stop investing, you sell your shares in the fund. No one gets evicted. No families out on the street.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    It comes as no surprise that thousands are fleeing the market. It's just confirming what we have been saying for years.


    But everyone thought it was great. Get landlords out and more people can live in a house. Except you know for the people that need to rent.


    If it was sustainable then landlords would stay. But it's not so they are taking advantage of one of the only positives to happen in the last 15 years to exit with their sanity.

    Landlords welcome good legislation that protects the market. But no other industry has to put up with what landlords have to.

    Bord Gais announced a 5th price increase, 3 last year and 2 this year. Why is there no gas pressure zone? where they are only allowed to raise prices once a year by 4%? And if people stop paying they are banned from cutting them off for 2 years and are forced to continue to supply free gas to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,081 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Terminating leases is only a problem because there is nothing to move to.

    That's a supply issue.

    If you want to move to lifetime leases you'd have to have the protections for all parties that they have in other jurisdictions. But no wants to do that. For example 3 months or longer deposits.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    Even in times of reasonable supply, evicting for the purposes of selling still causes disruption as tenants are forced to relocate. Extra supply is not, in itself, the full solution. But yes, increasing supply is part of the solution.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,081 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    You need a supply of permanent rentals. You need a supply of investors interested in that business. Not trap people in a business they want to leave. Indeed the market seems to doing the exact opposite of what you want it to do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    However they would not be trapped. They would be free to sell to other landlords. The idea would be that selling a property, in itself, would not be sufficient justification for eviction.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    Likely the budget will do some tax relief but you can't sell for 5 or so years to try stem the flow.


    Can't see it making much of a dent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,081 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997



    It is a trap. There's a financial hit for that, and you're expecting existing LL's to pick up the tab. Best they get out now and buy back in when it makes financial sense.

    In the meanwhile you can start over with whomever you entice into this with a new lease. Rather than retroactively change the T&C of existing leases.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,081 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997



    Maybe they might consider why there's a flow and fix that problem.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,778 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Our towns and cities need higher density housing in the centre so that people can rent properly designed apartments close to public transport.

    Landlords buying houses and renting them room by room or subdividing them into bedsits is sub optimal for the end user and the planning authorities

    Young single people want reasonably priced accomodation close to the city centre

    Families and those starting families want houses with space to grow into close to schools and amenities for children and families

    Putting young single professionals into the suburbs where they have to drive to work because there's no public transport suits nobody



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    Ways around that, sell for a small profit, with a bag of cash that revenue knows nothing about...

    My SIL just sold her house officially for €225k with a buddle of cash(€50k) buyer pays less stamp duty, and is allowed to use his money from his cash business without revenue knowing



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,786 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    And then when they go to sell it they can put the 1% saving on stamp duty against the 33% CGT on the phantom profit from selling. Only benefit would be for laundering money.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    Not if they never intend to sell like a majority of buyers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    Won't inflation affect us all including farmers, lol



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,627 ✭✭✭Fol20


    So supply is rental supply is decreasing. Your happy its "flushing out" Landlords that cant cope with it. In a healthy functional market, when one ll leaves, another enters due to the "enormous profits" but thats not being seen here. If its so good why are more ll not entering?

    What is your proposed solution as all of your comments for months is complete anti ll with no regard for the current setup where tenants are paying higher and higher rent, ll are also getting messed over and leaving as they are equally unhappy with the setup.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,627 ✭✭✭Fol20


    Agreed. i tend to skip over his comments at this point as there is no objectiveness to it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,786 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Happy for you to provide links to your sources for who is buying said houses.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,786 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    The response was in relation to food inflation. Lets see how much respect people suddenly find for agriculture when their food costs rocket and they realise that some farms don't bother producing much because their prices are still too low to make it worthwhile.

    CAP was put in place to drive down prices for consumers. It wasn't for the benefit of farmers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,081 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    I know, but won't inflation hit us farmers as hard as anyone, there's no point laughing at everyone else while being a frog in a boiling saucepan

    Also " let's see how much respect people suddenly find for agriculture when their food costs rocket" I'm sure theirs landlords out there saying the same thing about themselves

    As for farmers not producing food because there's nothing out of it is similar to landlords leaving accommodation idle or selling up due to rpz and over regulation, both very similar arguments I'm sure you'll agree



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,786 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Well not really. There is no logical argument for whinging about being caught in a RPZ. It only limits you from raising your prices beyond a percentage above what you were happy to rent them at previously.

    When a person buys a house, the price they pay for it is fixed at that point in time. Especially given that there are long term fixed mortgages now. Suppose you charge 1000 a month and say you even have to put 20% of that towards expenses (200). If you are allowed a 4% rise in what you can charge, then you are up 40 Euro. That would cover a 20% increase in expenses. The capital value of your house will more or less increase with inflation over the long term unless it is overvalued now. So you don't need an inflationary bump in your "income". That argument still holds from the financial theory even if you paid up front and don't have a loan/mortgage.

    In other words, if it is somehow not financially sound for you to rent in a RPZ now, it can't have been financially sound for you to do it before the RPZ was introduced. The yield on residential property is very high given its stability and relatively small systemic risk.


    For food production, you are at the mercy of both ends. You can make an investment today, and hope that in a few years the price you receive will be good enough to help you cover the costs. Even next Spring, you can go and pay through the nose for your inputs without any real guarantee of what you will get for the outputs later in the year. You can forward sell some for a fixed price but that leaves you on the hook if you can't deliver it for whatever reason.So it's not comparable to passive income from having signed a loan agreement one afternoon 10 years ago.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    So most farmers should sell their land and use the money to buy houses to rent as the risk is tiny and rewards are tied to inflation so the price of the house is ever increasing, how is this still a secret to so many



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,786 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    You've made up a lot of things there in your own head and convinced yourself that someone else said them



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,079 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    The yields are still insanely high.

    You can buy an apartment in Dublin 8 for 220k, say 235k after bidding, say 240k including all costs (Manor Hall, 1 bed, currently for sale).

    Those places are achieving 18000 rental income. Take out 2k for service charge and agent, plus another 2k or so for maintenence / insurance, and you are looking at 14k per annum pretax.

    That's close to a pre-tax 6% yield. Yes there is a risk premium, but it's a risk on the income not the capital (generally speaking).

    Most people look at this in the context of debt... i.e. if you borrowed 200k to buy it over 20 years that will cost 1200 per month or so, and make the whole thing a cashflow drain (after tax) and a pain in the neck. Making the foolish decision to manage it yourself to save 100 per month (gross) makes it a bigger pain in the neck.

    However for the REITs and other cashed-up buyers, Irish residential properties are delivering a massive return. There is nowhere else to get a solid 6% gross dividend on capital with limited long term capital risk and inflation proofing.

    It just feels like a nightmare if you do it yourself and borrow to do it (like most accidental landlords).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    If the government had stayed building houses like they did in the 50s to the 80s we wouldn't be in this mess, trying to privatise a market like housing is nothing short of crazy as they could never keep up with the pace as we have seen with the last 2 decades, local authorities need to start building houses to sell with a percentage given over to social housing with an option to buy, it's really that simple



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,343 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Owner occupiers have less people per bedroom than renters. This is replicated not just nationwide, but worldwide - homeowners even with families tend to have more "rooms" compared to renters in a shared house. And theres nothing wrong with that, theyre entitled to its their house.

    But you have to recognise that small landlords selling up en mass is not good - some people with get a new family home, but the majority will be losing out. Now not only can they not afford a house, they also cant find a place to rent as the supply has decreased!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,532 ✭✭✭fliball123


    then take 51% as most landlords are also working as well PRSI, PAYE and USC leaves you with a little under 7k. Then throw in life insurance and home insurance and property tax easily another 1k. So 6k - 500 a month now this is where the risk is if you get a tenant who knows the rules and knows that landlords are vulnerable when it comes to dealing with tenants paying. So your basically making a 500 Euro risk a month and thats if your not servicing a mortgage on the property which will be at a higher rate due to investment properties being on a higher rate and your betting on your tenant continuing to pay, they can stop and stay rent free in your premise for 4 years, wreck the place and walk away with no recourse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,529 ✭✭✭✭Supercell


    Wait until the Shinners get in next election, landlords may forget out evicting non paying tenants ever or likely even being able to sell up without a tenent in place. That's going to be a horror show, dont blame the landlords selling at all.

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,857 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    The plan from all sides is to have rental sector nearly completely dominated by Corporate entities and some social housing.


    No one wants to change that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,857 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    FG and FF will make sure that the sector is completely finished for the small operation.


    There isn't really a difference between them and SF on that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭Ideo


    Can you point me to where Sinn Fein's policy is in relation to this? I've seen lots of comments to this effect, but couldn't find anything meaningful. I think SF's policy would be madness and wouldn't stand up in court as it would seriously impact on a person's property (i.e. property owners house). There is a complete imbalance of rights between tenants and property owners, why anyone would want to be a landlord is beyond me!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,529 ✭✭✭✭Supercell


    Have a read of their housing policy in their own website - https://www.sinnfein.ie/housing :-

    • Provide rent certainty.
    • Introduce a tenant's rights charter.

    They are also going to apparently have 20% social housing on all new estates and somehow get 100,000 social houses built by 2030 – "Project 100,000"

    Its all populist nonsense, but its just going to make things worse IMO of course, would love them to prove me wrong for the sake of my three kids if nothing else. Time will tell.

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 767 ✭✭✭dontmindme


    That's a piece on Michael McDowell's opinion - whatever that's worth? Do we have any link to an official SF housing policy manifesto?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Problem is when you factor in Tax for the average once off landlord that figure halves.

    Then when you factor in the increasing risk associated with letting a property that return becomes less attractive especially when you consider the initial outlay.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 648 ✭✭✭MakersMark


    The question that the Left Wing Ultras can't answer is:


    If rents are at an all time high,and it's a great time to be a landord; then why do the facts show that small landlords are fleeing the market?


    They just can't understand how the defacto ban on timely eviction for non payment of rent and ASBO has made it uneconomical for landlords to continue.

    Couple that with forever tenancies, then how can you expect a small landlord to stay?


    Absolutely stupid to think otherwise.


    By the way, tax incentives to stay in the market is too little,far too late.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    It is easy to solve. Long-term contracts that both parties agree to, a sustainable tax system, and a quick eviction process through the courts for non-paying tenants.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,627 ✭✭✭Fol20


    A link to what?


    News articles have shown that rental supply is decreasing.


    Im still waiting for your proposed solution...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭arctictree


    Isn't a landlord selling only one of two reasons allowed for an eviction? So of course the stats are going to show selling as a huge cause of evictions...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,501 ✭✭✭KevRossi


    Tax rebates to renters is just another way of approving the massive rents that are in Dublin at the moment.

    Building 100,000 homes before 2030 won't even cover the net number of new arrivals from EU countries coming here to work in service industries.

    Also building 100,000 will be simply the councils handing over the contract to build to private builders. They will of course build as cheap as possible with as many shortcuts as possible and only self regulation to soothe our worries. When councils stopped building social housing we lost a lot of skills in councils in purchasing, design, engineering etc.

    We need a lot of legislation changes before we build 100,000. I'm not knocking them for having the vision, I applaud it. But I'm afraid SF haven't mentioned what they intend changing and what it will look like. The devil is in the detail.

    If you want an example of where we are with councils skills in regard to building social housing then look at Priory Hall. 200 apartmets which didn't pass the most basic design for fire protection. 200 apartments, probably €40-50 million worth and they didn't send one inspector out to look at the place for 30 minutes.

    We've a long way to go.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,927 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    The state (and a sizable chunk of the population withal) does not want the current situation to change. How many politicians and bureaucrats are invested in property? Even if they are not, the people making the decisions here, be they politicians or (more likely) civil servants are not desperate people who are constantly being out-bid on sub-400k house of trying to pay rent of 1500-2000 euros a month. A lot of people are doing very well out of this, and as is often said here, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

    Voting in Sinn Fein will solve nothing as the apparatus of the state that has lead us to this disaster will not change. Furthermore, Sinn Fein's policies will not address immigration and the buying up of property for social housing. Indeed, they will compound it, if they have an impact at all.

    Realistically, if the housing crisis is to be fixed, all options need to be considered, including those that make certain people uncomfortable such as immigration and social housing. I do not, however, think that this will happen.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,079 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    All income is taxed, including dividends etc. If you want to make money on an investment then you have to expect tax. 6% is still a very strong gross yield.

    The risks are real, and very painful, but the frequency is overstated. And if you are a REIT then you don't care, because as long as 90% of units are earning then you are making 90% of your expected yield i.e. the 'pain' averages out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,079 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    I agree that the impact of a mortgage makes this a terrible cashflow investment. My example was assuming no mortgage and no life assurance, but I did factor in the rest of the costs. The point I was making is that it is very clear why REITs and cashed up individuals are buying and borrowing individuals are selling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,527 ✭✭✭sk8board


    Morning, full time LL here for 15 years.

    1. re: accidental LL’s leaving the market - anyone who doesn’t want to be a landlord shouldn’t be in the market, it’s really that simple. if I had a euro for everyone over the years who told me “I’m thinking of buying a place around the corner and just rent it out”. I asked them all “do you actually want to be a landlord?” - and that was usually the end of the conversation. the market doesn’t need those people
    2. theres an overhang of Celtic tiger investors coming out of negative equity. the current price levels give all accidental landlords the opportunity to leave the market, solve all their problems and in almost all cases have equity back in their pocket to use elsewhere.
    3. however, and it’s a BIG however, the market does need a lot of landlords. Personally I think they should allow the market to professionalise. Of course I’m lobbing for my own end here, but the reality is that a professional market, with a structure to allow landlords form companies and be regulated according to the Residential Tenancies Act would be a far better market for tenants and LLs alike. The current market is very informal on the one hand, and regulations aren’t actively enforced on the other hand.
    4. just over 66% of all landlords (120,000 from 160,000) have only one property rented. From an investment perspective, the risk associated with 100% of income coming from one tenant is huge, in such an illiquid asset. It makes absolutely zero investment sense.


    and therefore a lot of accidental LLs are leaving the market, at a time when the materials cost of building houses is inflating rapidly.


    the market is broken on both sides, but the landlord has an easy/lucrative ‘out’ that the tenant doesn’t have



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,501 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    If what you are saying was true then the legislation brought in over the past 20 years would favour small landlords. Can you point to this? I can point to increased charges, taxes and restrictions that directly challenge your view. In other words they are doing a hell of a lot of negative things to small landlords to make logic of people who claim they are being treated favourably seem foolish.

    I don't know any landlord happy with the current situation with most appalled at the failure of the government and the stupidity of the public who think private individuals are responsible for social housing and subsidised rent



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,927 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    I wasn't talking about landlords, but rather the housing situation in general. I wouldn't pretend that small landlords are some sort of protected class. Rather, my point was that an inflated housing market and abysmal rental market suits quite a lot of very influential people.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,501 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    You were saying that it was the majority it suited but now it is some elite class but there is a lot of them! Who are you talking about exactly rather than be cryptic? How are they doing it?

    I can claim it is the reverse vampires controlling the market and just leave it there like you are. Public appetite for conspiracies and scapegoats exist as standard so it no surprise people think like you but they can never back it up with detail. Incompetence and chasing votes is much more believable as a cause than organised profiterring by a select group. When the ERSI warned of a lack of building and suggested government intervention the public claimed it was a conspiracy for TDs to help builder friends. So nothing was done and we got a housing shortage so now it is an elite group planned this. It isn't about politics it is about the mentality of the Irish people always assuming the government are at fault. Post colonial chip on our shoulder is the real cause.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,532 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Well its not just individuals that have borrowed its all small landlords with 1 or 2 properties as if 1 tenant acts the b0ll0x and decides not to pay the rent for 4 years + they could be in trouble so why would you gamble when the cards are stacked against you.

    This country is bonkers with regards to housing people they stopped building social housing and then put in ridiculous practices that allow people stay in a house for up to 10 years without paying a mortgage or a renter staying in a house for 4 years with out paying rent. The state have shifted the responsibility, risk and burden to the private sector. That IMO is what needs to be addressed here and the idea that someone who has never worked a day in their life and they never intend to can get a social house or pushed further up the housing list because they drop a sprog or two is rewarding this type of non-planning behavior. Then these people if they dont get a house where they want they can refuse and continue to refuse until they get a house beside mummy with a south facing garden so mummy can look after the childers on "Micky money day". Complete joke of a country - people on a housing list should be offered housing in parts of the country where housing is less scarce and it would be a take or your off the housing list. We have the tail wagging the dog in this country when workers have no option but to commute to work over long distances but those who dont want to work have carte blanche when it comes to where they want to dwell



Advertisement