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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

12467…12

Comments

  • #152
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    grahambo wrote: »
    Good Post

    Bit in Bold got me too, seem very low.
    My Mortgage is €1751 per month, I'd need to be renting for near €3k a month to balance out.

    But in fairness welcome to the real world. You could work and rent out your flat and have a lot less financial burden than most. Renting out a property doesn't preclude you from working.


  • #153
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    grahambo wrote: »

    You still have to live somewhere.
    Post above show not a huge amount of profit to be made.
    You cannot put a price on Hassle.
    Hassle = Least desirable thing.

    Of course you have to live somewhere. Most LLs are one or two property people. They either live in their main residence and take on a lodger or rent their second house to renters.

    And as regards the profit to be made you seem to be including mortgages as a business expense to be subtracted from net income. In a lot of cases the LL is using rent to partly pay off his mortgage or the mortgage of another property. You seem to be forgetting that mortgages aren't dead money. They get to keep the property at the end. Hence their using rental income to pay off asset acquisition.

    And I agree that in some cases not much profit is made. However if they're buying a house as a primary residence hoping to make a huge profit well then that's not a great business move is it? Some LLs seem to think they're owed a huge profit. As a group of business owners they seem the most vocal about profits.


  • #154
    Edgware
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,874 ✭✭✭Edgware


    Graces7 wrote: »
    [/B]

    :confused: Patently not true. I did not deserve most of my former landlords and they did not deserve a good tenant like myself
    Fool me once shame on you
    Fool me twice shame on me.
    Is there something about you that says "here comes a sucker"


  • #155
    Floppybits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Some LLs seem to think they're owed a huge profit. As a group of business owners they seem the most vocal about profits.
    And the counter to that is the Left seem to think because Rents are so high that ALL LLs are making huge profits, which leads to threads like this, when the reality of the situation is that the a of LLs are barely making anything and rent (big as it maybe) is just covering the costs of the property.


  • #156
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Floppybits wrote: »
    And the counter to that is the Left seem to think because Rents are so high that ALL LLs are making huge profits, which leads to threads like this, when the reality of the situation is that the a of LLs are barely making anything and rent (big as it maybe) is just covering the costs of the property.

    Actually I'd say most people think the rents are high because the supply means that those with the assets can charge more.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    Edgware wrote: »
    No its not the reality. There are good landlords and good tenants. There are bad landlords and bad tenants. The dirtbirds usually find each other and deserve each other

    Well I'm not a dirtbird I like to think I'm a respectable individual.

    Been hoodwinked plenty of times by so called "good" landlords though.


  • #158
    Edgware
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,874 ✭✭✭Edgware


    Church on Tuesday wrote: »
    Well I'm not a dirtbird I like to think I'm a respectable individual.

    Been hoodwinked plenty of times by so called "good" landlords though.

    Life's a bitch and then you die


  • #159
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Most of my rural landlords could barely , literally , read and write and had no idea of the rules.

    Oh you can bet they were aware of the rules, they just play dumb most of the time.


  • #160
    Floppybits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Floppybits wrote: »
    And the counter to that is the Left seem to think because Rents are so high that ALL LLs are making huge profits, which leads to threads like this, when the reality of the situation is that the a of LLs are barely making anything and rent (big as it maybe) is just covering the costs of the property.

    Actually I'd say most people think the rents are high because the supply means that those with the assets can charge more.
    I would disagree with that.  A few Landlords are probably creaming it but most I would say are charging rents to cover the costs of property.  I have a property and I haven't put the rent up and I wont as what I am getting is covering the costs and that is all I care about.


  • #161
    TheShow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,157 ✭✭✭TheShow


    There are good tenants and bad tenants, good landlords and bad landlords.
    The bad tenants screw the good landlords and the bad landlords screw the good tenants.

    A landlord should be able to choose who they want to live in their property and on what terms. However they should also respect the privacy etc of the person in said property.

    I'd sell my place tomorrow if I wasn't in negative equity. I'm paying tax on an income that I'm not making, in an environment where I have practically zero rights over my own asset when I'm the one working hard to make sure the mortgage is paid on it.
    I don't want to be a property investor, but I'm stuck with a property and a mortgage that I don't want.
    I too am charging rent to just cover the mortgage which is well below the market rates, there is no point in putting the rent up because god knows who you would get in (you want to see the sob stories the last time I had it advertised), how long they will last in it, how much damage they will cause and you only end up paying more tax in the end.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,778 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Of course you have to live somewhere. Most LLs are one or two property people. They either live in their main residence and take on a lodger or rent their second house to renters.

    I think taking in a Lodger is the best way to make a bit of money on this
    AFAIK you can get around 5 or 6 hundred a month and not pay tax so long as you live there too?
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    And I agree that in some cases not much profit is made. However if they're buying a house as a primary residence hoping to make a huge profit well then that's not a great business move is it? Some LLs seem to think they're owed a huge profit. As a group of business owners they seem the most vocal about profits.

    I'd say for most landlords who found themselves accidental landlords on properties with mortgages drawn down over the last 10 are making sweet fu*k all

    If you want to make money on it, you need to have no mortgage overhead, it's that simple.
    This is where I get what you're saying about getting to keep the property at the end, as it's only at that point it starts making money, but the thing is most mortgages are 30/35 years, therefore most people will have retired or will be very close to retirement age at that point, so they still aren't making huge amounts of money (unless they've a whopper pension, but hardly anyone has an amazing pension anymore)

    It's their kids that will make the money though, they'll inherit 2 properties in their mid 50's.
    But even then, you're in your mid 50's and probably comfortable enough. It'd be easier to just sell the properties than have the hassle of renting them

    My point is it's not the cash cow everyone thinks it is.

    If I ever found myself in situation that I inherit a property that I don't intend to live in, I'll be selling it.


  • #163
    raze_them_all_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_


    Currently paying 950 a month excluding bills. Yeah I think landlords have it good


  • #164
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    Edgware wrote: »
    Life's a bitch and then you die[/QUO


    Take your trolling elsewhere good lad.

    I suggest the dole bashing threads plenty of your sort there.


  • #165
    Floppybits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    raze_them_all_ wrote: »
    Currently paying 950 a month excluding bills. Yeah I think landlords have it good
    I think you have it good, rent at under 1k.  Not many places you would get that.


  • #166
    raze_them_all_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_


    Floppybits wrote: »
    I think you have it good, rent at under 1k.  Not many places you would get that.

    I'm sharing and it's for a room


  • #167
    Floppybits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    raze_them_all_ wrote: »
    I'm sharing and it's for a room
    The rent on my apartment is 50 euro more.


  • #168
    raze_them_all_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_


    Floppybits wrote: »
    The rent on my apartment is 50 euro more.

    How many rooms how many you sharing with


  • #169
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smdh at the landlords expecting "profit" while rent covers their mortgage

    lads, its been said multiple times on the thread- if you want to calculate annual "profit" like this (nb you shouldnt, it's ridiculous) then by all means lash in the increased value of the property over the year as well.

    theres two things going on- the various costs of renting and the equity in the property. landlords are in the business of meeting the former to gain the rewards of the latter.

    if it were to be run like a business (nb dont do this either it too is kind of ridiculous) then set rent vs costs (but not the mortgage) and let that be yr profit/loss

    you can have it one way or the other but you cant credibly beg sympathy by trying to have it both ways


  • #170
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Deleted User wrote: »
    smdh at the landlords expecting "profit" while rent covers their mortgage

    lads, its been said multiple times on the thread- if you want to calculate annual "profit" like this (nb you shouldnt, it's ridiculous) then by all means lash in the increased value of the property over the year as well.

    theres two things going on- the various costs of renting and the equity in the property. landlords are in the business of meeting the former to gain the rewards of the latter.

    if it were to be run like a business (nb dont do this either it too is kind of ridiculous) then set rent vs costs and let that be yr profit/loss

    you can have it one way or the other but you cant credibly beg sympathy by trying to have it both ways

    Well in that case, they should lash in the decreased value of the property over the last 10-years into tax reliefs too!

    You can't credibly try to have it both ways!


  • #171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Well in that case, they should lash in the decreased value of the property over the last 10-years into tax reliefs too!

    You can't credibly try to have it both ways!

    theres a case, theres a case

    over the course of the ownership with CGT is probably the only feasible way to do this, tho


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Floppybits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,736 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    raze_them_all_ wrote: »
    Floppybits wrote: »
    The rent on my apartment is 50 euro more.

    How many rooms how many you sharing with
    Thats 1k for the apartment.


  • #173
    raze_them_all_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_


    Floppybits wrote: »
    Thats 1k for the apartment.

    Well then we can agree my landlord is doing alright for himself then


  • #174
    topper75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    It doesn't seem to protect tenants very well either, considering (a) what we're currently paying, and (b) the absence of security of tenure. I live in dread of getting a phone call from my landlord, saying he's returning to Ireland and wants his apartment back. We really need a better system - one that makes it easier to kick someone out for not paying their rent, but also makes it impossible to kick someone out if they are paying their rent, abiding by the tenancy agreement, etc.

    Post of the thread. So short yet nails our key problems.

    Wish politicians would read.


  • #175
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Turtwig wrote: »

    The problem right now is an overwhelming number of tenants have it tougher but the appetite for landlords to supply tenements is dwindling. Making things even worse.

    That is an excellent observation.
    And I say that as a landlord who is choosing to leave my property empty.


  • #176
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Church on Tuesday wrote: »
    Sorry most landlords are gangsters, speaking from vast experience here.

    It's a business for them, it's not done out of the kindness of their heart.

    It's a virtual goldmine for them. Have you ever met a poor landlord? I haven't.

    No sympathy for landlords either who let a place out only to have tenants fall back on their rent or wreck the place. Ask for a reference, most people who are decent have a work, or at the very least character reference, then cross reference that reference. That's your responsibility.

    I pray to God that you suffer the financial harm that some tenants have inflicted on landlords.


  • #177
    Sultan_of_Ping
    Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Sultan_of_Ping


    Church on Tuesday wrote: »
    Sorry most landlords are gangsters, speaking from vast experience here.

    It's a business for them, it's not done out of the kindness of their heart.

    It's a virtual goldmine for them. Have you ever met a poor landlord? I haven't.

    No sympathy for landlords either who let a place out only to have tenants fall back on their rent or wreck the place. Ask for a reference, most people who are decent have a work, or at the very least character reference, then cross reference that reference. That's your responsibility.

    Interesting.....I have to admit this is exactly the type of presumptions, negative attitude that makes me glad we've not got our property out to rent.

    We're lucky in the sense we don't need to have the property rented out all the time. We thought about going back to the rental market but decided against it - the alternatives give us a return we're satisfied with and zero hassle - or at least a level of hassle we're comfortable with.

    When we thought of going back to the market with the property we thought about "incentivising" good tenants - our plan was to agree with the tenant to refund refund 5 to 10% of the rent paid if, at the end of the tenancy, the property was returned in a condition acceptable to use.

    I discussed the idea with our solicitor and he kind of went a bit nuts and strongly counselled against it......there seemed no other way for us to protect the property if we let it to a tenant, so off the market it came.

    Judging by that attitude, the money spent with our solicitor was not wasted. However, it means a decent central property in Dublin will only go out on short term lets to very carefully vetted people, with us suitably indemnified.


  • #178
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »
    Interesting.....I have to admit this is exactly the type of presumptions, negative attitude that makes me glad we've not got our property out to rent.

    We're lucky in the sense we don't need to have the property rented out all the time. We thought about going back to the rental market but decided against it - the alternatives give us a return we're satisfied with and zero hassle - or at least a level of hassle we're comfortable with.

    When we thought of going back to the market with the property we thought about "incentivising" good tenants - our plan was to agree with the tenant to refund refund 5 to 10% of the rent paid if, at the end of the tenancy, the property was returned in a condition acceptable to use.

    I discussed the idea with our solicitor and he kind of went a bit nuts and strongly counselled against it......there seemed no other way for us to protect the property if we let it to a tenant, so off the market it came.

    Judging by that attitude, the money spent with our solicitor was not wasted. However, it means a decent central property in Dublin will only go out on short term lets to very carefully vetted people, with us suitably indemnified.


    They're not presumptions, my opinion is based on years of renting.

    If you are/were a decent landlord then fine, I respect that. Not every Landlord I've had has been dodge, but the vast majority were. There's no point in me saying otherwise just because the few decent landlords on here will get upset like you have.

    There are decent landlords and decent, like myself, tenants. There are those tenants then who couldn't give a toss about the place their staying in and will wreck the place and be a nuisance for their housemates. I've any amount of college/work and even previous landlord references.

    No landlord is really on the breadline. None of the ones I've met in my time anyways. One landlord on here mentioned he has two properties, that's two more than most people and that's fair enough.

    But please spare me this craic about landlords somehow letting for the good of it; it's a business, pure and simple.


  • #179
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Church on Tuesday wrote: »
    But please spare me this craic about landlords somehow letting for the good of it; it's a business, pure and simple.

    Its not always a business

    As for checking references, believe me, slum tenants have become very creative at ways of supplying fake tenancy references! It's a nightmare!


  • #180
    donspeekinglesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭donspeekinglesh


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    You seem to be forgetting that mortgages aren't dead money. They get to keep the property at the end.

    We won't get an asset at the end of our mortgage. And I'm sure we're far from alone in having an interest only btl mortgage.
    We either need to have enough money saved from the rent to pay the full price outright (fat chance) or be able to sell to cover the cost.
    Half way through we would be lucky to break even on the sale, after tax, fees, empty period while sale goes though etc. I doubt we'll make back the money we spent topping up the mortgage during the lean years.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Its not always a business

    As for checking references, believe me, slum tenants have become very creative at ways of supplying fake tenancy references! It's a nightmare!

    Only accept work or college references.

    Don't accept flimsy looking ones were they probably got their mate to scribble something down.

    Slum tenants can be a nightmare for decent landlords, I can sympathise with that.

    Can be hell for the decent tenants to have to actually live with that sort too.


  • #182
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    Have a look at the Funny Houses/Flats to rent thread and see if that doesn't answer your questions...


  • #183
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    It's easy to be an expert in hindsight. For those who bought before the bubble, there was no real warning that the world economy would collapse in 2007. And with house prices rising there was a real feeling of missing the boat if you didn't get a property.

    There were plenty of warnings. Morgan Kelly for example. People were just blinded by that fact there was easy credit available.


  • #184
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/Top-Stories/ireland/niall-muldoon/

    Complaining about landlords gorging. Doctors have been gorging on the sick for years.


  • #185
    alias no.9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    We have one rental property. Never really intended being a Landlord, it’s a former PPR that was way under water when we moved out, selling at the time would have crystallised a big loss meaning we simply couldn’t have moved to a place big enough for our family had we sold. While we never intended being landlords, we still made an informed choice based on the circumstances we were in so I don’t think accidental landlord is the correct term, I’d reserve that for someone who had to move for work or had to let one property and rent another themselves.

    The rent we charge is below market value and being in an RPZ will continue to be, however it’s still pretty close to breakeven on a cashflow basis even after tax, so I won’t play the poor mouth but every landlords circumstances will be different. When the capital element of the mortgage payment is taken into account, selling it right now would not make sense on a purely numbers basis, obviously if you would have some money left over from the sale and had a specific need for that, it would be a different story. Having never intended being a Landlord, selling up was however a very real consideration when our long term tenants gave notice earlier in the year, again we took stock of our situation and decided to let again.

    Going through the process of finding tenants in the midst of this crisis was eye opening. Taking prospective tenants at their word and accepting their current landlords reason for serving notice to terminate the tenancy, there is an exodus happening in the sector. There are a lot of desperate people looking for places right now, right across the spectrum of professions and demographics. Lots of enquiries from people on HAP, interestingly almost every single one was in employment which in itself should blow apart some stereotypes. Based on the figures they are disclosing as their approved HAP amounts, this number should not be the problem either, we’re dealing with a total lack of supply and the only thing that will fix it is an increase in construction of both social housing and private rented housing. I would 100% agree that when location comes into it, priority should be given to those working in an area over people who’ve never worked looking for a place beside their ma, but as I’ve stated above most enquiries from people on HAP were from people in employment, often many years in the same job.

    Back to the exodus from the private rental sector, if these landlords are all intending selling up, the crisis will get much worse before it gets better. From my own purely selfish motives, I see that if I accept what I am being told by prospective tenants, that selling now would be stupid as moving with the herd and selling when everybody else is selling will rarely prove to be the best option. Obviously as the property is in an RPZ, the upside on rent is limited but there still remains the opportunity to cherry pick the best tenants. This is a landlords strongest card in mitigating the biggest risk in their business, a non-paying tenant. It’s little things like this that keep you viable. Last time round I was prepared to negotiate on rent for the right tenants, it left me in the situation of being tied to below market rate rent now but for the time they were there, I never once had to wonder if the rent would be paid, it was always paid and on time, I don't have any regrets.

    I think that the current trend of open viewings don’t lend themselves to getting a good feeling for prospective tenants, I didn’t show many people the property but I spent a bit of time talking to each of them. In reality I think that all of them would make good tenants, most tenants are good tenants and most landlords are good landlords, but there’ll always be some little things that mark one set of tenants above the others if you take the time to talk to them.

    There are things I think would improve the sector for everybody. RTB cases need to be resolved within 6 weeks, this should help both tenants and landlords, nobody needs uncertainty hanging over them. Where an RTB decision declares a valid termination has been issued, there should be a fully enforceable order to vacate within 4 subsequent weeks. To balance this, terminating a lease to sell should be a one time only thing, sure there are instances where properties are genuinely put on the market but the sale falls through, the same landlord should never have the opportunity to use this declaration on the same property again, too much spoofing going on. Family member moving in should be subject to random checks.

    The market rent thing has become a joke, you simply cannot openly advertise a property that is significantly below market rent which in turn taints the perception of what market rent should be because what you're really seeing is a segment at the upper end of the market, with below market rent properties being let through word of mouth or where they advertised, the real rent is not being advertised. If all new tenancies were allowed set the rent independent of the previous tenancy, it might bring more properties onto the open market and possibly but there is still an overall shortage. It's time to ditch the link to previous rent and the market rent bits when setting rents for new tenancies, the data exists through RTB registrations and the mandatory BER along with Eircodes to benchmark current rents on a €/SqM basis by areas and regions. Use a median value for an area either as your control point for future tenancies or else if you're going to use the tax code to try and get a hold on rents, use the actual rent v's the median rent for the area as a means to offer tax relief or increased taxed to reign in the higher end, the RPZ system actually locked in the chancers and pisstakers at the top end of the market and penalised the folks who saw fit to not increase the rent on a sitting tenant.

    Anyway, I'm waffling a bit now, these are just some recent insights, feel free to agree, disagree, counter the points made.


  • #186
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    nothing to respond to, a very interesting post tho!


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Sultan_of_Ping
    Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Sultan_of_Ping


    Church on Tuesday wrote: »
    They're not presumptions, my opinion is based on years of renting.

    If you are/were a decent landlord then fine, I respect that. Not every Landlord I've had has been dodge, but the vast majority were. There's no point in me saying otherwise just because the few decent landlords on here will get upset like you have.

    There are decent landlords and decent, like myself, tenants. There are those tenants then who couldn't give a toss about the place their staying in and will wreck the place and be a nuisance for their housemates. I've any amount of college/work and even previous landlord references.

    No landlord is really on the breadline. None of the ones I've met in my time anyways. One landlord on here mentioned he has two properties, that's two more than most people and that's fair enough.

    But please spare me this craic about landlords somehow letting for the good of it; it's a business, pure and simple.

    Well actually you are being presumptuous in assuming all landlords are typified by your experience.

    And yes, no landlord (or certainly none I know) are letting and setting properties out of altruism. Some (myself included) do it because it offers a reasonable rate of return.....a good chunk, however, are not landlords out of choice but out of necessity and would likely dispose of the property their letting if they could do so in a way that leaves them debt/liability free.

    Anyway, if you think it is easy of handy money head off into the bank tomorrow with 3/4 properties you want to buy and see how far you get when you put you business plan to them - you should have no problem getting funded 😉


  • #188
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »
    Well actually you are being presumptuous in assuming all landlords are typified by your experience.

    And yes, no landlord (or certainly none I know) are letting and setting properties out of altruism. Some (myself included) do it because it offers a reasonable rate of return.....a good chunk, however, are not landlords out of choice but out of necessity and would likely dispose of the property their letting if they could do so in a way that leaves them debt/liability free.

    Anyway, if you think it is easy of handy money head off into the bank tomorrow with 3/4 properties you want to buy and see how far you get when you put you business plan to them - you should have no problem getting funded 😉

    I never said all landlords are the same.


  • #189
    alias no.9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    I do want to add one more thing... There are some absolute scumbags out there looking to profit on the back of the current crisis while contributing almost nothing except a brass neck. I had third parties, who should be fully aware of the relevant legislation, contact me and suggest they can get me much more than the advertised rent despite the obvious location in an RPZ, one on the basis of renting the entire property and subletting it room by room, I had images of battery chickens in my head, and another claiming to have screened and vetted professionals on their books having rented another property in the same development at a much higher price.


  • #190
    Yer Da sells Avon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    Keyzer wrote: »
    Although I understand where your coming from, making it impossible to get your property back if you are renting it out is a ridiculous suggestion.

    I'll tell you what's ridiculous: Being legally allowed to kick someone out of their home when they've been paying their rent on time and haven't done anything wrong.


  • #191
    Edgware
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,874 ✭✭✭Edgware


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    I'll tell you what's ridiculous: Being legally allowed to kick someone out of their home when they've been paying their rent on time and haven't done anything wrong.
    Renting is in accordance with the lease and the tenancy can only be terminated in accordance with the law.
    Dems the rules


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    I'll tell you what's ridiculous: Being legally allowed to kick someone out of their home when they've been paying their rent on time and haven't done anything wrong.

    I don't foresee a time when there is no difference between owning a house and not owning a house.


  • #193
    Graces7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    I pray to God that you suffer the financial harm that some tenants have inflicted on landlords.

    That would come back on you, that illwishing ..


  • #194
    Yer Da sells Avon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    psinno wrote: »
    I don't foresee a time when there is no difference between owning a house and not owning a house.

    What, like in Germany, where security of tenure is guaranteed, as long as you abide by the tenancy agreement?


  • #195
    Graces7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    What, like in Germany, where security of tenure is guaranteed, as long as you abide by the tenancy agreement?

    The landlords here maybe think they are letting out a hotel? Not a home. this thread reminds me of the day I saw the absentee landlord striding up the drive with a letter in his hand.. YOU know... still half the lease left.... trouble... My dogs took exception to him... that got interesting

    A rental is not a hotel or a hostel.


  • #196
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    Irishcrx wrote: »
    I don't think generally people really understand that landlords don't profit a huge amount from a single house tenancy and then have to balance the risk vs reward , one bad tenant + rent arrears , damages and legal costs could well put you off ever doing it again and you have pretty much no legal backing in any sort of speedy manner, one bad tenant and there profits for that year could be in minus.

    People spout high rents etc etc , yes and higher rental income = higher tax outgoings.

    Example

    Rental Income - €2,000 per month
    Tax on income (Higher Rate) - €1040
    Mortgage Payment - €700

    Profit = €260

    Trust me , €260 a month isn't a lot for the hassle that comes with being a landlord. Yes certain repairs can be written off as well as other deductions end of year but it isn't the goldmine people assume it to be unless you are already rich and rent a large number of properties and thus can afford the odd loss.
    n97 mini wrote: »
    As a rule of thumb, the rent has to be double the mortgage repayment to cover the mortgage after tax. If it doesn't the landlord has to cover the shortfall. Looking at property prices in Dublin it's very difficult to actually make this happen if you have a job, so people are less inclined to be landlords. Less landlords = less properties to rent = higher rents. It all comes down to supply and demand.

    Ironically if profit on the rental was taxed, as it is in business, and not turnover, it would increase the supply and rents would actually fall.
    Floppybits wrote: »
    I would argue that your profit is even less than that when you take into account insurance, Management fees (if you have them), sinking fund for repairs and replacements. After those are paid you wont be even seeing much change out of your €260 profit.
    grahambo wrote: »
    Good Post

    Bit in Bold got me too, seem very low.
    My Mortgage is €1751 per month, I'd need to be renting for near €3k a month to balance out.

    EDIT: I think you're numbers are wrong (903/40)*100 = 2257.5 ?



    You still have to live somewhere.
    Post above show not a huge amount of profit to be made.
    You cannot put a price on Hassle.
    Hassle = Least desirable thing.
    Floppybits wrote: »
    I would disagree with that. A few Landlords are probably creaming it but most I would say are charging rents to cover the costs of property. I have a property and I haven't put the rent up and I wont as what I am getting is covering the costs and that is all I care about.
    Conflating short term month to month nett cash flow with profit is one of the reasons the small / non professional landlord can feel they have it tough.

    Expecting month to month rental income to more than cover the repayments on a property is not a realistic business plan. The landlord is acquiring increasing equity in an ä appreciating asset (over the long term to allow for market fluctuations). To expect not to have to contribute on an ongoing basis to their increasing equity in that asset during the lifetime of the mortgage is unrealistic.

    Property letting needs to be viewed as a long term investment. The early years need a nett cash input (including the initial deposit and an ongoing top up of the mortgage payment).

    At some point, inflation / rising rents and increasing equity in the property, will result in a neutral and then positive cash flow. The property can then generate a nett monthly income.

    Once the mortgage has been largely repaid or if someone has inherited a property free of any financial encumbrances then the rent received can provide a reasonable nett monthly income. Expecting rental income to do this from day one is not a sustainable or a realistic business plan.

    The budget has upped mortgage interest relief for landlords from 80% to 100%. Expecting nett rental cash flow to cover or more than cover the monthly repayments is essentially expecting the taxpayer and tenant to fund the landlord's acquisition of a valuable asset for less than 20% of its value. Yet some people cannot see the hypocrisy in complaining about social housing tenants being allowed to partially offset rent paid against the purchase price of their home.

    Like any business, property is a risk, risk and reward often go hand in hand and and the risk / reward benefit needs to be carefully considered. The small / non-professional landlord can be financially ruined by a bad tenant as they don't have the resources to spread their risk in the same way large property companies do.

    Some small time property investors may have gone in with their eyes closed, were poorly advised or mis-sold on property investment as a near risk free sure thing. Some of those have been hit hard and you can't but empathise with their situation. Others, aware of the long term nature of their investment, I think are cynically using the plight of some of the small time landlords to try influence policy and further increase the returns on their long term investment, on which they pay very little tax.


  • #197
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,741 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Irishcrx wrote: »
    I don't think generally people really understand that landlords don't profit a huge amount from a single house tenancy and then have to balance the risk vs reward , one bad tenant + rent arrears , damages and legal costs could well put you off ever doing it again and you have pretty much no legal backing in any sort of speedy manner, one bad tenant and there profits for that year could be in minus.

    People spout high rents etc etc , yes and higher rental income = higher tax outgoings.

    Example

    Rental Income - €2,000 per month
    Tax on income (Higher Rate) - €1040
    Mortgage Payment - €700

    Profit = €260

    Trust me , €260 a month isn't a lot for the hassle that comes with being a landlord. Yes certain repairs can be written off as well as other deductions end of year but it isn't the goldmine people assume it to be unless you are already rich and rent a large number of properties and thus can afford the odd loss.

    Please note that the calculations here are wrong.

    Capital repayments on a mortgage are not a cost/expense.

    They are a form of saving.

    The interest payment is a cost.

    You do not pay income tax on the gross rental income.

    Many people confuse cashflow with profits/losses.

    Many landlords are making large rental profits, but are cashflow negative after making capital repayments.

    Some landlords seem to assume that the gross rent should cover the interest and capital repayments.

    Rent should cover the cost of occupation, not the cost of ownership.


  • #198
    Sultan_of_Ping
    Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Sultan_of_Ping


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    What, like in Germany, where security of tenure is guaranteed, as long as you abide by the tenancy agreement?

    I think that would be the ideal.......BUT for that to happen you need to fundamentally change the sector in Ireland and encourage big players into the market who will own/rent thousands of properties (as is the case in Germany) and anytime a firm displays an interesting in doing that they're immediately labelled as vulture funds.

    We should be welcoming that kind of investment. Those companies are in it for the long haul and don't use spurious reasons to end tenancies. They can also well afford to carry the hassle of the odd bad tenant.


  • #199
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,741 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Irishcrx wrote: »
    Example

    Rental Income - €2,000 per month
    Tax on income (Higher Rate) - €1040
    Mortgage Payment - €700

    Profit = €260

    Trust me , €260 a month isn't a lot for the hassle that comes with being a landlord. Yes certain repairs can be written off as well as other deductions end of year but it isn't the goldmine people assume it to be unless you are already rich and rent a large number of properties and thus can afford the odd loss.

    Let's assume that of the 700 mortgage payment, 500 is allowable interest. That's fairly high, but we will be generous.

    This landlord is then making 1500 rental profits per month before other expenses.

    Let's allow 100-200 pm for other expenses.

    So they earn 1350 net rental profits.

    On this figure they will pay tax at their marginal rate.


  • #200
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    What, like in Germany, where security of tenure is guaranteed, as long as you abide by the tenancy agreement?

    This is a discussion of Ireland not Germany. Even says so in the subject.

    But yes even in Germany when you can end a lease because you need to use the property yourself or "kick someone out of their home when they've been paying their rent on time and haven't done anything wrong" if you prefer.


  • #201
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    psinno wrote: »
    This is a discussion of Ireland not Germany. Even says so in the subject.

    But yes even in Germany when you can end a lease because you need to use the property yourself or "kick someone out of their home when they've been paying their rent on time and haven't done anything wrong" if you prefer.

    Not necessarily. My dear father tried that with one of his tenants, whose only fault was not backing down in a fight my brother had started.
    My father tried to get the man out of the apartment claiming he needed it for his other son, who had finished university and now needed a place to stay in his home town.

    The court ruled that it had been foreseeable that my brother would finish university and might need a place to stay, therefore other arrangements could have been made. The tenant got to stay.

    There is this saying out there that the reason social policies can't get you elected in the US is that everybody there feels they really are a millionaire, just with temporary cashflow problems.
    I think the reason it's impossible to introduce sensible rental laws in Ireland is that everyone here thinks of themselves as landlords who just haven't got round to buying the properties yet.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement