Landlord evictions 1000 in 2nd Quarter due to selling up

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

How do you make them rent/sell them though..

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/are-there-really-lots-of-vacant-high-end-apartments-in-dublin-1.4797711

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

A link to what?

News articles have shown that rental supply is decreasing.

Im still waiting for your proposed solution...

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.

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.

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

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.

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