Good news for tenants in budget 2018

Claw Hammer · 10-10-2018 2:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah I'm doing alright for myself.

I'm also able to work out when someone is spoofing on the internet, you should sharpen up the old critical faculties and give it a go.

Or to put it another way, his sums don't add up and I've called him on it.

The only spoofing I see is coming from you. You have interjected a huge amount of speculation and assumption into a reasonably plausible story based on what you say are your own personal circumstances.

Sleeper12 · 10-10-2018 2:13pm

marieholmfan wrote:

That is a very rational way of thinking. Too rational in a sense because many people are less rational than yourself.

It is the first time I've been called rational on boards.ie. I'll take the complaint & run

Grumpypants · 10-10-2018 2:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's pick this apart.

Firstly it would be interesting to know when you bought. You have 14 years to clear the mortgage, if it was a 25 year mortgage then you probably bought near the top of the boom, but if it was a tracker (again, it should be based on the timings) then you really shouldn't still be in negative equity based on making repayments for 11 years.

So just sell up?

You say you are 'losing' €170 a month. But how much of the mortgage principal are you paying off every month? Are you including that in your analysis, and if not why not?

Bought around 2004, moved to a tracker alright around 2007 I think (just got in there before it all went belly up). think it was about 27 years. I had to do two years at interest only payments when I was out of work so that moved it about a bit.

House was 200K, it was a fresh build so I had to put another 50K into doing it up and fitting it out. So about 250K. Right now the house is worth under 160K. So even as I pay down the principle and release equity I'm still 90K down and that's not even factoring the interest on the mortgage.

I can't afford to up my payments as I'm pinned to the collar. I've a second mortgage now as I'd to buy where I now live. I've two small kids in child care that I get no assistance with because it isn't a creche. That's like a third mortgage.

Browney7 · 10-10-2018 3:15pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

Bought around 2004, moved to a tracker alright around 2007 I think (just got in there before it all went belly up). think it was about 27 years. I had to do two years at interest only payments when I was out of work so that moved it about a bit.

House was 200K, it was a fresh build so I had to put another 50K into doing it up and fitting it out. So about 250K. Right now the house is worth under 160K. So even as I pay down the principle and release equity I'm still 90K down and that's not even factoring the interest on the mortgage.

I can't afford to up my payments as I'm pinned to the collar. I've a second mortgage now as I'd to buy where I now live. I've two small kids in child care that I get no assistance with because it isn't a creche. That's like a third mortgage.

So if you wanted to close out the position on the negative equity mortgage now you'd need to come up with say 20 grand on top of the sale price (say mortgage is 180k) but if you wait another year, you'll have lost 130 a month for 12 months (1560) but the outstanding principal on the loan may be now 175 (ie your wealth will become less negative to the tune of 3440)

marieholmfan · 10-10-2018 3:29pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

I've two small kids in child care that I get no assistance with because it isn't a creche. That's like a third mortgage.

Is that a nanny?

Grumpypants · 10-10-2018 3:38pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Is that a nanny?

Lady who minds kids in her house. We wanted them in a family environment.

marieholmfan · 10-10-2018 3:39pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

Lady who minds kids in her house. We wanted them in a family environment.

Nice idea. Can be pricey.

Grumpypants · 10-10-2018 3:45pm

Browney7 wrote: »

So if you wanted to close out the position on the negative equity mortgage now you'd need to come up with say 20 grand on top of the sale price (say mortgage is 180k) but if you wait another year, you'll have lost 130 a month for 12 months (1560) but the outstanding principal on the loan may be now 175 (ie your wealth will become less negative to the tune of 3440)

I think I used negative equity incorrectly. I could sell and pay off the mortgage. There would be very little left over. and the tens of thousands already spent would be lost.

10-10-2018 3:49pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

I think I used negative equity incorrectly. I could sell and pay off the mortgage. There would be very little left over. and the tens of thousands already spent would be lost.

I was about to say the same thing - I don't think you are in negative equity based on how you describe your situation.

If you want some genuine advice I would consider selling up. It sounds like you can do without the hassle and houses are going for more than the asking price in the current climate, although it depends exactly where it is.

There's an old phrase good money after bad that springs to mind. As mentioned above I paid a huge amount of money in stamp duty (like an obscene amount) and I'll never see it again. So be it, there's nothing you can do about things like that.

Grumpypants · 10-10-2018 4:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I was about to say the same thing - I don't think you are in negative equity based on how you describe your situation.

If you want some genuine advice I would consider selling up. It sounds like you can do without the hassle and houses are going for more than the asking price in the current climate, although it depends exactly where it is.

There's an old phrase good money after bad that springs to mind. As mentioned above I paid a huge amount of money in stamp duty (like an obscene amount) and I'll never see it again. So be it, there's nothing you can do about things like that.

I looked at selling to the council to see if they could keep the tenant in place, but as usual there is a backward rule where the house has to be empty. I've a year left in my contract with the tenant so I'll honor that.

As long as house prices go up and the mortgage gets paid down I do make back a small amount. If I didn't have a tracker I'd have sold long ago, but I'll never get money that cheap ever again so it is harder to let it go.

Claw Hammer · 10-10-2018 4:05pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

I looked at selling to the council to see if they could keep the tenant in place, but as usual there is a backward rule where the house has to be empty. I've a year left in my contract with the tenant so I'll honor that.

As long as house prices go up and the mortgage gets paid down I do make back a small amount. If I didn't have a tracker I'd have sold long ago, but I'll never get money that cheap ever again so it is harder to let it go.

The council are going to tell the tenant to stay there when the agreement ends. Where is she going to get another place as cheap?

Wheres Me Jumper? · 10-10-2018 4:58pm

Fol20 wrote: »

I also found them to live longer in properties instead of a typical year for Irish people.

yes i agree. while i appreciate there are exceptions to all rules i just think non-nationals have a more mature attitude to renting. it's probably just a cultural thing.

if i'm talking to friends, colleagues etc. the minute you mention you are a LL Irish people tend to slip you into the lazy stereotypes with comments like "ah sure you must be fleecing your poor tenants" and "you must be creaming it off", or "it's because the likes of you we have all these poor homeless people on the streets"

initially i used to get a bit irked, then i got bored of it. at this stage i find it amusing.

Browney7 · 10-10-2018 5:02pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

I think I used negative equity incorrectly. I could sell and pay off the mortgage. There would be very little left over. and the tens of thousands already spent would be lost.

So each year you continue with the tenant your wealth is increasing then? (provided no shock to house prices over the year : rent received less tax less mortgage payment and expenses is more than offset by reduction in principal).

Is your tenant eligible for HAP? Presumably you're not in a rent pressure zone (yet) and with the new CGT budget measures for people buying a property with tenants in situ (getting a CGT relief) it could be worth reviewing tenants rent up to near market rate if you can especially if you're eyeing the exit door.

mrslancaster · 10-10-2018 5:03pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

....And then I see the likes of Murphy yesterday saying it was a landlords budget yesterday, that we don't deserve any help.

He said there is specific purpose rent legislation coming in a few weeks that will strengthen Rent Pressure Zones and additional funding to enforce RPZ's.
Rent transparency so people can see what they should be paying.

He said there is a big transformation coming in the rental sector and when tenant is served a notice to quit they will have double the period to find a new place.

Extra 121m for HAP payments and rent caps to support people in the private rental sector.

more changes on the way.

Sleeper12 · 10-10-2018 5:41pm

The Student wrote:

Also to compare a rented property to a taxi is unrealistic. A taxi driver can control his taxi and can clean it up as he needs to, with a property the landlord can give a property in great condition but unless the tenant keeps is cleaned and aired then it gets into disrepair and then the landlord has to prove it was not like that when given to the tenant.

A landlord can & should clean the rental between tenants. A huge amount of landlords don't do this. If the carpets need to be cleaned then the landlord should do this between letting. The landlord is responsible for the general wear & tear of the property. Dirty Ancient thread bare carpets aren't good enough.

Any landlord getting into Airbnb is only too delighted to pay to have the rental cleared between letting. This could be several times a week. It's not too much to ask a landlord to clean rental units between lettings. This will only be once every year or two.

It's ludicrous to have higher standards for a taxi than a rental unit for a fresh lettings.

Eventually the government will bring in decent minimum standards. As a trade off it should be possible to get things changed like making it easier and cheaper to remove a problem tenant. This is all years in the future when we no longer have a housing shortage. They can't be seen to make it easier to evict while we have a housing & homeless crisis. Landlords love to quote how you can evict within weeks in so many other countries. They often forget that the same countries have higher minimum standards.

Any decent landlord has nothing to fear from better minimum standards. It's only the really bad landlords that would have to worry. A good rule of thumb for a landlord is to ask themselves would they be happy for their own family to move in the unit as it is.

4ensic15 · 10-10-2018 7:43pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

He said there is specific purpose rent legislation coming in a few weeks that will strengthen Rent Pressure Zones and additional funding to enforce RPZ's.
Rent transparency so people can see what they should be paying.

He said there is a big transformation coming in the rental sector and when tenant is served a notice to quit they will have double the period to find a new place.

Extra 121m for HAP payments and rent caps to support people in the private rental sector.

more changes on the way.

The rent caps are making things worse for people who are not availing of them. It is also causing poorer use of the housing stock. They were intended to be there for 3 years and there should be no reason for making them even more extreme. It is only going to make the people who can get around them even better off.

Sleeper12 · 10-10-2018 7:55pm

While most landlords are sticking to the rules many getting around them or ignoring them. There is no other way to explain 8 percent average rent increase for Dublin last year when it should be close to 4 percent

EDIT: Sorry I made a mistake. Dublin rent increased by 13.4 percent & not 8 percent as I posted above.

Sorry for the confusion

4ensic15 · 10-10-2018 7:59pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

While most landlords are sticking to the rules many getting around them or ignoring them. There is no other way to explain 8 percent average rent increase for Dublin last year when it should be close to 4 percent

New apartments owned by vultures would account for some of the increase. Inertia by existing landlords should cancel that out. Enhancement and improvement can explain all the increase.

Sleeper12 · 10-10-2018 8:11pm

4ensic15 wrote:

New apartments owned by vultures would account for some of the increase. Inertia by existing landlords should cancel that out. Enhancement and improvement can explain all the increase.

Ah bless.

Minister for not enough housing didn't even attempt to come up with that. He says that he doesn't use DAFT statistics (the most comprehensive statistics). The minister says that the real increase is close to 4 percent according to his statistics.

The reality is that there's a huge amount of landlords in Dublin are ignoring the 4 percent cap. Most aren't but lots are. There are constant threads here claiming that the landlord is putting rent up more than 4 percent or they left because landlord was selling & a month later it's back on DAFT at a much higher rent. Most are afraid to complain in case the landlords daughter all of a sudden decides to come back to Ireland and he'll need to rental for her.

Gumbo · 10-10-2018 10:57pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ah bless.

Minister for not enough housing didn't even attempt to come up with that. He says that he doesn't use DAFT statistics (the most comprehensive statistics). The minister says that the real increase is close to 4 percent according to his statistics.

The reality is that there's a huge amount of landlords in Dublin are ignoring the 4 percent cap. Most aren't but lots are. There are constant threads here claiming that the landlord is putting rent up more than 4 percent or they left because landlord was selling & a month later it's back on DAFT at a much higher rent. Most are afraid to complain in case the landlords daughter all of a sudden decides to come back to Ireland and he'll need to rental for her.

Last year in Dublin, more apartments came to the market than houses. Many were sold in blocks to vulture funds. Hampton wood in poppintree, Beaumont road, the rents on these were massive relatively bento existing stock so I can see how new builds and vulture funds could sway the average rent increase.

sk8board · 10-10-2018 11:19pm

As a LL, there was nothing in this budget, bar another stick for people to beat the 175,000 landlords with.
They could have followed their own reports from 4 years ago and allowed LPT to be deducted,
Or allowed landlords to professionalise, set up a company etc
In return for increased lease durations or tenancy protections.

Instead they brought one measure forward two years and allowed all the loonies a free tweet that it was a “landlords budget”.

with property prices now topping off, the 120k accidental LLs with one rented place will continue to step off the merry go round as they get out of negative equity, or were only in it for the price speculation.
This was very obvious in this years RTB report - almost 25k LLs from 2016 vanished. I know a few of them.

People can argue till they are blue about greedy landlords, but I did my tax returns last week for 2017, and 61% of my rent went to the government in tax.
(40%+4%prsi+5%usc + 12% maintence fees and repairs).

As an investment vertical, the market is broken. I can invest in shares, equities or anything else, make a similar return, with a lower risk profile (and I don’t get vilified

Sleeper12 · 10-10-2018 11:35pm

sk8board wrote:

People can argue till they are blue about greedy landlords, but I did my tax returns last week for 2017, and 61% of my rent went to the government in tax. (40%+4%prsi+5%usc + 12% maintence fees and repairs).

I see 49 percent to the government in tax. Surely you didn't pay 12 percent maintenance fees and repair to the government?

Unless I'm totally missing something you paid 49 percent tax on the profits? Maintenance fees and repair are tax deductible?

Would I be correct in saying that the 49 percent you paid wasn't 49 percent of the total rent? But 49 percent of the profit? I don't know if you have a mortgage & get interest relief but if you have this could have you paying anywhere from 20 to 40 per of the rent in tax.

You say 61 percent of the rent went in tax. That is totally wrong and if that is what you put on the tax return I suggest that you do it again because you are ripping yourself off

Fol20 · 11-10-2018 12:17am

What he is trying to say is that 61pc of the rent roll he received didn’t end up in his pocket but in someone else’s.

Sleeper12 · 11-10-2018 2:22am

Fol20 wrote:

What he is trying to say is that 61pc of the rent roll he received didnâ€™t end up in his pocket but in someone elseâ€™s.

Well he did not say that. He said that 61 percent of the rent went in tax. This is not true.

Not only that but assuming that he has a mortgage then only around 30 percent of the rent went in tax and not the 61 percent claimed?

It sort of of puts a huge dent in his monologue though because its giving false figures like that convince people that all landlords are rich and continue to hide the fact that they are rich. Now I know that is not true but time & again small landlords inflate the portion of the rent that they pay tax on.

Oh, he's wrong about not being allowed to set up a company too. There is absolutely nothing wrong with landlords setting up a company. Many have done just this.

The Student · 11-10-2018 8:08am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A landlord can & should clean the rental between tenants. A huge amount of landlords don't do this. If the carpets need to be cleaned then the landlord should do this between letting. The landlord is responsible for the general wear & tear of the property. Dirty Ancient thread bare carpets aren't good enough.

Any landlord getting into Airbnb is only too delighted to pay to have the rental cleared between letting. This could be several times a week. It's not too much to ask a landlord to clean rental units between lettings. This will only be once every year or two.

It's ludicrous to have higher standards for a taxi than a rental unit for a fresh lettings.

Eventually the government will bring in decent minimum standards. As a trade off it should be possible to get things changed like making it easier and cheaper to remove a problem tenant. This is all years in the future when we no longer have a housing shortage. They can't be seen to make it easier to evict while we have a housing & homeless crisis. Landlords love to quote how you can evict within weeks in so many other countries. They often forget that the same countries have higher minimum standards.

Any decent landlord has nothing to fear from better minimum standards. It's only the really bad landlords that would have to worry. A good rule of thumb for a landlord is to ask themselves would they be happy for their own family to move in the unit as it is.

You are completely missing my point. A taxi driver can clean a taxi after each trip if he wishes and the taxi driver is present during the trip and can minimize any damage (as he can see it being done).

A landlord can't minimize damage as he is not present when it is done nor can minimize its impact unless his tenants contact him when its happening.

Yes a spruce up between lettings is normal (a lick of paint, good clean etc).

The problem lies in the regulations. I have two properties rented out one to the council and one privately. The property let was required to have vents installed in every bedroom and the kitchen (when there is an extractor fan as well over the cooker) for ventilation. Why are vents needed when you have window's?

This is just one example of regulations gone to the extreme. By the way I am not anti regulation but some of the regulations appear to exist just for the sake of it.

I grew up in the 70's and we did not have vents in bedrooms, we did not have mould in the houses because the houses were not insulated the way they are today. People did not dry clothes in houses and if they did in the winter they left windows open to let the dampness out.

I consider myself a decent landlord and yes I would be happy for my family to live in either of my properties (and eventually they will).

The Student · 11-10-2018 8:21am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ah bless.

Minister for not enough housing didn't even attempt to come up with that. He says that he doesn't use DAFT statistics (the most comprehensive statistics). The minister says that the real increase is close to 4 percent according to his statistics.

The reality is that there's a huge amount of landlords in Dublin are ignoring the 4 percent cap. Most aren't but lots are. There are constant threads here claiming that the landlord is putting rent up more than 4 percent or they left because landlord was selling & a month later it's back on DAFT at a much higher rent. Most are afraid to complain in case the landlords daughter all of a sudden decides to come back to Ireland and he'll need to rental for her.

The average rent is raising as first time lets are at the market rate and will increase the average.

If a landlord is raising the rent by more than 4% then go to the RTB. People want new accommodation available but they don't want to pay for it. They want to put a cap on rents. This will not attract investors to the sector.

If you want increased availability then get the State to provide it.

Legislation exists if landlords break the law. Use the legislation but make the legislation fairer to both landlords and tenants.

Have you ever considered why landlords, investors and developers are not increasing the supply to meet demand? it is because of how the State at a whim will change the goalposts.

Property development is a huge investment by the developer, property investment is a long term investment for landlords and institutional investors. With the constant changing of the "goal posts" none of the above will increase the housing stock until the State stops changing policy almost weekly at this point.

Investing in property is done so to make a profit nothing more nothing less.

KevinCavan · 11-10-2018 8:25am

Grumpypants wrote: »

State-controlled housing. That will end well.

The state are controlling the market, keeping house prices high.

Wanderer78 · 11-10-2018 8:27am

KevinCavan wrote:

The state are controlling the market, keeping house prices high.

Is the market truly capable of providing us with all our needs?

Sleeper12 · 11-10-2018 8:31am

The Student wrote: »

You are completely missing my point. A taxi driver can clean a taxi after each trip if he wishes and the taxi driver is present during the trip and can minimize any damage (as he can see it being done).

A landlord can't minimize damage as he is not present when it is done nor can minimize its impact unless his tenants contact him when its happening.

This shouldn't impact on the next tenant coming in as they are entitled to a decent minimum standard when moving in. Airbnb landlords don't have a problem paying a cleaner to clean between lettings.

The Student wrote: »

Yes a spruce up between lettings is normal (a lick of paint, good clean etc).

Sadly not as normal as you think. Higher minimum standards wont effect decent landlords like yourself & I'm sure all the landlords posting here. However in Dublin we have some out & out kips. I'm in different rented accommodation on a daily basis. In Dublin city it's not unusual to find old Georgian buildings split into rooms. You can have several beds in a tiny room. I struggle getting my toolbag through the room into the bathroom. Yesterday I saw two sets of bunkbeds for four adults in a tiny room suitable for one person. Every room covered in mould

Look I could spend the whole day writing about the horrors I see. You wont believe most of it but these are the places that need higher minimum standards. I'm not talking about your property

The Student wrote: »

The problem lies in the regulations. I have two properties rented out one to the council and one privately. The property let was required to have vents installed in every bedroom and the kitchen (when there is an extractor fan as well over the cooker) for ventilation. Why are vents needed when you have window's?

This is just one example of regulations gone to the extreme. By the way I am not anti regulation but some of the regulations appear to exist just for the sake of it.

I grew up in the 70's and we did not have vents in bedrooms, we did not have mould in the houses because the houses were not insulated the way they are today. People did not dry clothes in houses and if they did in the winter they left windows open to let the dampness out.

Building regs state every room must have a vent. If your property is newish then maybe you have trickle vents in the windows & you are wondering why you had to install a second vent in each room? Every room in the house must have a vent, inc the attic.

The Student wrote: »

I consider myself a decent landlord and yes I would be happy for my family to live in either of my properties (and eventually they will).

You passed a simple test there. IMO a good rule of thumb is if you wouldn't want your own family living there then your standards need to be improved

EDIT: I should point out that I am in some really well managed properties more often than the really bad ones.

Sleeper12 · 11-10-2018 8:49am

The Student wrote: »

The average rent is raising as first time lets are at the market rate and will increase the average.

If a landlord is raising the rent by more than 4% then go to the RTB. People want new accommodation available but they don't want to pay for it. They want to put a cap on rents. This will not attract investors to the sector.

If you want increased availability then get the State to provide it.

Legislation exists if landlords break the law. Use the legislation but make the legislation fairer to both landlords and tenants.

Have you ever considered why landlords, investors and developers are not increasing the supply to meet demand? it is because of how the State at a whim will change the goalposts.

Property development is a huge investment by the developer, property investment is a long term investment for landlords and institutional investors. With the constant changing of the "goal posts" none of the above will increase the housing stock until the State stops changing policy almost weekly at this point.

Investing in property is done so to make a profit nothing more nothing less.

It should work that way but it doesn't. My wife was telling me last night about her friends sister & children moving in with her sister. Mother works in a good job. Landlord told her house is being sold & she has to move out. She's in her sisters. Same house is up for rent for hundreds more. Yes she can report him but she's still in her sisters with nowhere to live & wherever she rents she'll pay the higher rent.

There are cases here on boards daily or weekly where the landlord has done something like this. If a rent isn't registered in the first place then how does the government know what the increase is?

It's all well & good saying that we have rules in place put there is no governing body with real teeth to investigate & punish rogue landlords. There are thousands of tenants paying top up rent in cash so the landlord can avoid the cap. Tenants do this because they don't want the trouble of flat hunting again with the possibility of having to crash on someones couch for weeks while hunting, only to end up paying as much in the new place as the old.

You have to understand there are two types of landlords. Good & bad. The bad tend to make a lot more than the good.

Ask anyone flat hunting or house hunting if they feel rents are only 4 percent higher than last year. Not people moving into new apartments as stated in other posts but people looking in regular Dublin rentals.

I made a mistake with Dublin's average rent increase in an earlier post. It's not 8 percent. It's actually 13.4 percent year on year in Dublin

Good news for tenants in budget 2018

Comments