Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

1679680682684685943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    What happened there is the second bidder offered exactly what they thought the house was worth, and likely did a "take it or leave it" offer.


    One of my friends did the same. House ad went on Daft on a Monday, he viewed on Tuesday, made an offer well above asking and went sale agreed same day. Ad was taken down on Wednesday.

    Job done, no one else got a look in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Modular homes wont get planning permission at scale. They wont be built in large towns and cities, where homes are needed. Because they wont get planning permission.

    A landlord doesnt need to sell their property. They can hold it. Its not a zero sum game.

    And every home a landlord removes from the rental market is one less home available to a growing population.

    The repercussion is increased homelessness.

    We need Landlords to stay in the market, especially when the govt buids f**k all social homes themselves.

    There is effectivley no supply of rental property other than what is delivered by the private landlord.

    If the govt actually built their own properties we could get tough on landlords.

    But they don't. So we can't.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 625 ✭✭✭Cal4567


    Actually there are examples of AHBs delivering modular to scale, but I assume you are referring to private build.

    Only a matter of time. Modular has been quite late to break into Ireland, purely my own suspicion, but I always felt the CIF was up to very recently dominated by sector interests who were keen to support traditional wet trades. However, that looks to be changing.

    Would be interested to see if anyone who currently works in construction agrees with that, or have I got it wrong?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 584 ✭✭✭theboringfox


    Asking prices are often guide price. I find given how long Ive been looking I can tell fairly easily now if something is priced low to get bidders in. I still personally would not do 50k jump bid as its not in me but I have been bidding on plenty of houses where I wish I had given where price ended up. Also if it is a house with lots of bidders it is likely a good few will pay what its worth but to decide who gets it means someone usually has to pay that bit more. Look at recent stats on volume and value of first time buyer mortgages...way up over last year despite rate rises. All chasing little supply and running away from high rents. Prices remain strong as result with exception of doer uppers maybe



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 210 ✭✭Mr Hindley


    Supply still going no where fast... From anecdotal observation on Daft, asking prices in Dublin at least don't seem to be changing much, though I suspect a lot of places, houses at least, are going well over asking.

    image.png




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Modular is not cost competitive in this country - unless its timber framed modular which do not last in this climate.

    The maintenance costs will increase and increase over time - but thats a problem for 40 years from now so nobody cares



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Do you know if the 2 whose apartments were purchased by the council already receiving HAP or some other housing support?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Indeed.

    Another headwind that the resi sector faces.

    Some people continie to believe thst SF will just magically move through the gears and enable construction of 60k+ homes from year 1 onwards.

    It isnt going to happen and how sorry the youth will be when they realise they have gained no extra homes and have lost good job opportunities at home to boot.

    As SF go after the multinationals and highearners with increased taxation and the targeted groups just move country.

    Net result is fewer homes and fewer good employment prospects for everyone, including the 20 somethings.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Dd you have any examples where modular homes have been built at scale witin Dublin or other high price areas?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Do you have any examples where modular homes have been built at scale in Dublin or other high price areas?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    A good question.

    I thought the renter had to be in receipt of housing support in some way to qualify for this council buy back scheme.

    Which is essentially unfair, but then if you remove the limits on earnings/benefits for the renter to qualify, where does the scheme end?

    It would mean the govt should be purchasing any rented home if the tenant has a NtQ.

    Regardless of how much the tenant earns or has in wealth.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Horsecrap about the planning our state effectively controls this and local authorities can be told to do what they are told. Anyone locally objecting should have a CPO put on their property to put some manners on them. It is a zero sum game if a landlord is not making a profit on rent they are hardly going to hold on to an asset where prices are actually starting to drop? Doesn't seem like the brightest idea to me but who knows I reckon a lot will be cashing in so if a landlord sells their property then someone buys it so zero sum as one person loses a place to live and someone gains a place to live. Put in vacant property tax and it will force the landlord to rent. So no incentivization for them put a tax on their place if its vacant so they either rent or buy we should not be giving tax payers money to any individual who is rich enough to own 2 or more properties..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Many landlords do sell, of course.

    But when they sell, the new owner very rarely moves off a housing list and they quite often do not leave an empty property behind them.

    Think of a couple moving from 2 houseshares to buy a home. The 2 homes they left are still occupied by the other renters. Same with first time buyers moving out of parents home. Or a couple that seperates etc.

    The people who have money to buy a home, rarely leave an empty home behind.

    Essentially, the increased number of homes is housing the same amount of people, but the ratio between people and homes has reduced.

    Plenty of landlords do leave the property empty, because natural rises in value offset any vacany tax imposed.

    They can also just move a family member into the home (offically - even if they dont actually live there)

    Lots of ways landlords can get around not renting out the property and still accrue value long term from their asset.

    The bottom line is we shouldn't be forcing potential landlords into a situation where they HAVE to rent out a property. We should create an environment where they WANT to rent out their property.

    That's one of the first key steps to actually solving the housing crisis, that and building far more homes at scale.

    But as far as landlords are concerned, more Carrot & less stick is part of the solution.

    And social housing tenants should house share, same as private tenants do. That would have a huge impact on reducing homelessness.

    What's good for the goose and all that...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    hang on one person moves out and another moves in regardless of being on any list its a zero sum game. Someone had 2 properties they now have 1 and someone else had no property or a partial space in a property and now they have one. Giving landlords a tax break is absolutely bananas in the current situation. As I say if they have a vacant property tax at 10% they have to use it or lose it. Time is up on people hoarding critical infrastructure. Stick needs to be sharpened the carrots have been well and truly eaten



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    If a couple move out of their parents home to buy a house, nobody moves into their parents home when they leave.

    The same 6 people are now occupying 3 homes instead of 2.

    Same for a separating couple. 1 stays in the home but they dont move someone else in.

    Same 2 people are now occupying 2 homes instead of 1.

    In a house share, another person gets a place to share when someone moves out to buy, which is a good thing. But as the social list doesnt put people in house shares, that sequence doesnt reduce the homeless/housing waiting list.

    There should be a change of policy there so that people on the housing list get offered places in house shares and if they dont accept, they get moved to the back of the queue.

    Lots of working folks dont have the luxury of single occupancy rentals, so why should non-working folks?

    10% vacancy tax is easily avoidable. Just move a family member in officially, even if they dont actually live there.

    There are barely any carrots for landlords at the moment which is the exact reason why they are leaving the market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 426 ✭✭grumpyperson


    We went 30k over in our final bid. We'd been looking for about 4 years. The time and money wasted over those 4 years is probably over 30k.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,926 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    I am not sure I go 50k over either. However from years going to auctions I have seen tactics like this often and they do work. I have often see lads do a 2-5k jump where the bids were in. 500's to shake off another bidder( on items worth les than 100k.

    50k is a serious jump, however if you have been put bid 8-10 times and two years later still paying 2k/ month in rent and want to get on with life then maybe this is your final throw of the dice, check.yhr market value and put that bid in with 5-10 K on top.

    5;-10k extra to where you think the bidding might stop is only a few.months rent for many

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Both cases were not in receipt of any state housing assistance

    In both cases rent significantly below current market rent as LL's caught in the rent freeze

    Income limits for a couple circa 60k net p/a

    Scheme is open to tennants not in receipt of state assistance and to persons not on social housing list

    Having and declaring savings inadvisable for qualification




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    CIF now calling on govt to introduce a 1% levy on all second hand home sales, to justify gouging on new build prices fund infrastructure.

    More inflationary nonsense, and poorly justified too. New builds need a contribution to infrastructure because new houses mean an increasing population,which in turn requires more infra and amenities to support it. A 2nd hand home sale does not mean more population, and does not require any additonal infrastructure, so should not have any levies.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 290 ✭✭Honey50000


    30k over crazy was it priced very low to start with or what?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    They are leaving due to the really high prices at the moment and with interest rates going higher the price increases have stopped and are turning so they are checking out at what most would say is the highest price point. Why didn't they sell 5 - 6 years ago tax on property has not increased in that time if anything it is now more attractive to be a landlord you can now offset mortgage interest yet landlords fleeing the market has only ramped up in the last 2/3 years.

    Just some issues with your narrative, firstly your first point the 2 sets of parents are still living in their home and are you really saying its a sustainable model where couples in their late 20s and 30s trying to make it work while staying in their parents for ever more?

    The fact is if a landlord sells a property someone will use it and rent it out or someone else will buy it and live in it we can make up any scenario you want with regards to the making up of what happens when we buy/sell or rent but the question I want answered is why would it be a good idea to give a tax break for someone who is in the fortunately position to own 2 properties. It does not make sense and I certainly don't want my taxes going towards it. If the current situation is not working for the landlord then sell its that simple.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    The CIF can go and do one buying a house is already too expensive when you take all the costs involved. Why don't they look at all of their members take home pay for the last year and tax it at another 10% to fund infrastructure phucking pricks. Call it a gougy mc gougerson tax

    Post edited by fliball123 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Thanks.

    If the state does buy the property, do the state then keep the rent payments as they are or are they reassesed?

    I assume the sitting tenant has first refudlsal on the property and the state cant bump them out and bring in someone from their social housing list.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    I think you are right that the prices are near the top of the cycle, but the controls over rental property from the govt are the driving force in landlords getting out of the game.

    The eviction ban was the final straw for many.

    Rent returns have never been better. If you own a 1 bed apartment in a basic part of Dublin, you can still easily get 1800 or 1900 a month for it.

    Plenty of 2 bed apartments in decent areas ( not top end areas) going for 2.5k a month.

    The rental income is so high that landlords shoud be falling over themselves to get into the game and yet the exacty opposite is happening!

    Why is that happening?

    Because the govt shafts landlords at every turn and it is now paying the penalty for that approach.

    One example: It can take years to get a non paying tenant out of your home. It should take 6 months tops.

    I didnt say it was a sustainable model for couples in their 30s to stay living with parents. I said that when the couple buy a home, they generally dont leave a vacant property behind them.

    To answer your question, the tax break for landlords is simply to encourage them to stay in the market.

    If there are 50000 homes to rent in Dublin and the demand is 70000 potential renters, the last thing we want to do is drive 50% of those landlords out of the market.

    If we do, the 25000 homes no longer available to rent will push up prices for those 70000 folks looking to rent.

    Of the 25000 homes taken out of the rental market, lets say 5000 remain unoccupied.

    Landlord renovates etc or just leaves the property idle until the market becomes more favourable for landlords again.

    Another 5000 are bought by investment funds or big business to house visiting global staff. They do not return to the public rental market.

    10000 are sold to private buyers who do live in the home, but many of them moved into ireland from abroad to take up a job or moved out of their parents/shared accom - in other words, they have not left a property in ireland empty.

    5000 of the homes are re-let and back on the rental market.

    So we have gone from 50k homes to rent, against a demand of 70k renters, to availability of 30k homes to rent, against demand of 70k renters.

    Thats why we need to incentivise landlords to stay in the market.

    To protect the renters.



  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    30k over, 50k over is completely irrelevant without context. Some EAs put the properties up at way below market price, often the bidders will have been looking for a long time and will be well aware how high the bidding is likely to to regardless of the asking price. They're a borderline irrelevance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 426 ✭✭grumpyperson


    Bidding started low. In the end we looked at what we could afford and went all in. We had to borrow from family to get it over the line but after 4 years it's done.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,393 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    I paid 270k on a house listed for 190k on Daft originally in Limerick, it went up to 290 before I dropped out, EA came back a few months later saying it had fallen through and it was mine for 270 if I wanted it. Ill never know if it was him or the owners yanking my chain or if any of the high bids were real but its worth it for the relief of being done with the whole horrible business at last.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 335 ✭✭gaming_needs90




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Giving more money to FTBs pushes prices up, who could have predicted this?!



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators Posts: 56,215 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    It is absolutely not zero sum as rental properties tend to house more people than owner occupied.

    A 3 bed house will likely house 3 tenants, but probably only 2 owner occupiers. A 2 bed apartment will likely house 2 tenants, but probably only 1 owner.

    This is exactly why the reduction in rental supply has been so terrible for people in the rental market.



Advertisement
Advertisement