Why I'm taking my rental off the market

the aggressive nature of this thread and the lack of empathy for the OP is disgraceful. I think people need to have a good hard look at themselves and get off their feckin' pedestals.

Lux23 wrote:

The landlord catches them himself. If we contacted a pest control company, we would end up paying because he does what he can to deal with it. They always come back this time of year - four years in a row!

This is appalling, I can't understand landlords expecting some one to live in a house they wouldn't inhabit themselves and they certainly wouldn't live in what you have described.

DubCount wrote: »

Landlords providing sub-standard accommodation, Tenants living rent free for months and milking the system, Licensees being forced to live by crazy house rules. All of these deserve criticism and action taken to help those on the receiving end. From a Tenant point of view, the only solution is more rental supply, because then if you find yourself in a rat infested house - no problem, move to somewhere that isn't rat infested. The only way you are going to get more rental supply, is addressing the eviction process. The OP story is a tragedy for him/her, but ultimately its the reason tenants are having to put up with higher rents and poor conditions.

Explain how that would work exactly?

davo10 wrote: »

Making it easier to remove errant tenants would free up more rental accommodation and make investment in buy-to-let properties more attractive.

I don't believe tenancy laws are what's really influencing investor decisions not to purchase properties to let - it's the low return on investment and high tax rates. Unless you're a cash buyer, you're not making much of a profit after maintenance and your tax bill is paid. The risk of getting stuck with a dodgy tenant is probably a risk worth taking if the profits are high, which is why people are jumping into short-term lettings.

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't believe tenancy laws are what's really influencing investor decisions not to purchase properties to let - it's the low return on investment and high tax rates. Unless you're a cash buyer, you're not making much of a profit after maintenance and your tax bill is paid. The risk of getting stuck with a dodgy tenant is probably a risk worth taking if the profits are high, which is why people are jumping into short-term lettings.

Their jumping into short term lettings due to tenancy laws coupled with potential extra earning. It’s not one or the other. It’s both. It is about risk mitigation and several ll are leaving the market due to tenancy legislation being completely one sided

Browney7 wrote: »

A very healthy yield in the low interest rate environment. 12% gross on what you paid or 12% on what it's currently worth?

More than likely what he paid.

The_Conductor wrote: »

In which case- the most sensible financial assessment might quite simply be to sell into the current market and get out of business (depending on when he bought, of course).

It depends what your after, more than likely if he bought at the bottom and has the capital gain exemption, he would should be easily netting 100k+. It’s a good net profit however would it be better to keep it for the long game so that in 20 or 30 years, you could either keep it for your pension top up or just sell it off

Loves_lorries wrote: »

Your confusing the HAP scheme with the long term lease scheme.

My rent is guaranteed even the place is empty during periods. I've never met who lives in my house, I don't even know their name.

Yup, seems I was. It seems this may be the best way for landlords who consider doing HAP.

Old diesel wrote:

You wouldnt be happy to have 17 k worth of damage to your car and ZERO comeback would you.

Buy car accidents are generally accidents, in this case, it's destruction of someone else's property, why should landlords have to pay?

august12 wrote: »

Buy car accidents are generally accidents

Actually, they're not generally 'accidents, which is why the relevant authorities refer to collisions, not accidents.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Instead of the traditional deposit, tenants could be required to take out an insurance policy to cover damages/overholding/legal costs above a certain excess. Policy would be very cheap for those with a good record or who provide little risk of default, but more costly for anybody who has defaulted or wrecked property in the past.
This would give advantages to good landlords and good tenants.

That could work if the tenant actually paid monthly into it. They could do it for a month and then stop paying though

Loves_lorries wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

Yup, seems I was. It seems this may be the best way for landlords who consider doing HAP.

Can understand why someone with a valuable house would be reluctant to lease a property for ten years and also the fact that the council tends to house risque folks in these properties.

I've a small amount of capital staked here.

Please read this article and you will understand why:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-would-not-follow-the-law-the-next-time-landlord-who-lost-25k-in-ordeal-with-rentdodging-tenants-37317965.html
Actually I do not know how some truth about the Irish rental market came out in the Indo today. I thought the Editor was absolutely opposed to showing the massive issues faced by landlords in Ireland.

listermint wrote: »

I hope the government insure that Airbnb laws are pushed like Toronto's.

There's a raft of people on here who think nothing of going the air BnB route and think nothing of the neighbours that live next door to your short term let. You don't pay business rates like equivalent hotels or bnbs . You think it's fine and dandy to run rough shod over it just because Airbnb is a massive organisation.

The sooner the government sorts this out the better. I'd put money down you'd go nuts if your neighbours had 3 different sets of people coming into their house each week .

Bet you wouldn't be a big fan of that carry on.

But that happens in rentals too, and there is limited opportunity for a neighbour to do anything about it too, the rtb sure, if you dont mind your car trashed or your windows smashed, it really depends on who you are dealing with.

Trasna1 wrote: »

How could it be a 75% loss when the capital fronted by the investor was 100k and the return was 125k. For the sake of simplification I omitted calculation on tax and interest but they don't matter to the point I'm making - that the underlying asset has a capital value.

Say the same person buys a property for 200k and the rent covers the whole 100% mortgage and interest after tax as well as maintenance. Property values in the area fall by 2.5% between the beginning and the end of the term. Has the landlord made a loss? Or an outsized profit? Has his net wealth increased or decreased?

Seemingly landlords here think they're making a loss unless they essentially acquire a property/asset for free

How much interest do you think the person is paying over the lifetime of the rental/mortgage? As for omitting tax and interest, well they matter very much in that, tax is on the income and not the profit, but the bank takes their cut every month, you need to have enough return to pay whatever the costs associated with purchasing the property, whatever is invested wont be earning interest elsewhere.
You are assuming the rent covers the whole 100% of mortgage (incl interest, tax and maintenance) time isnt even included, do you simply think people should invest their own savings or take out loans to provide accommodation for someone else, where the state wont and that this should generate no return for all of the duration of the use of rental? it is not simply a matter of waiting until the end for someone to realise any benefit and if it was more realistic to make a reasonable and fair amount, then rentals might make sense. People are bailing out and the Govt of the day and last 7 years has done nothing, its on their heads that this problem is to blame, not all landlords.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think the general thought from non landlords posting is with the highest rents ever in the history of the state then landlords have to be making money.

If the State was willing to reduce the tax take, then landlords could offer reduced rents and still make a certain return and cover costs, if the state isnt willing or is unable to provide accomodation then I dont understand why they wont incentivise this, costs associated with renting should all be deductible such as interest and interfering in certain miuntae, only x costs for certain things like white goods or even requiring them in rentals at all is ridiculous, same for requiring a 4 ring hob in a bedsit sized accomodation, or banning them outright, seems to be they had a place and it is not better that people froze in doorways. I understand providing a reasonable standard but people have different requirements and means and accomodation should fill these requirement differently, fixed rules and legislation does not help cater to differing needs.

Fol20 wrote: »

Ill give an example
Rent 1500
Mortgage(interest only part) 700
Maintenance +misc @20pc =300
That leaves you with 1500-(700+300)=500
Tax &50pc =250

After all is said and done, your left with 250 in your pocket to pay towards the principle and if you have a boiler that breaks down or a dodgy tenant, you may as well knock out a few years worth of your “profit”. And that’s at peak rent. Everything is cyclical so you get the picture. Most small time ll aren’t in to make a quick buck or to have wadd of cash from it. It’s a slow burner where you can make a steady gain but nothing like what people think notwithstanding all the risks and stress from it.

I understand what you are saying, nothing left in it, but its worse than you make out, tax comes off first on the income, you seem to have said its on profit at the end, Im open to correction but I believe Im correct on that, otherwise I understand and agree with what you mean

Lux23 wrote: »

I reckon I've spent about €80,000 on rent since 2005 - my current landlord has gotten nearly €30,000 from me. He moans about bills, taxes, his debts etc. and then says, oh I won't be contactable for the next few weeks as I will be in France for a wedding and then on to Thailand for two weeks. While we're paying him a grand a month for a rat infested hole just so we can get the money together for a deposit for our own place. And we're the lucky ones - it could be two grand!!!

Do any landlords have empathy for their tenants and their experience of our crappy housing system?

You seem to be unhappy you've paid on average of about 500 p/m for a rental over 13 years?? that doesnt sound too bad to me, you clearly think 30k over 13 years is great, but it works out at 200 per month? if the landlord has a mortgage then that money wont exactly be going into his pocket maybe your landlord can afford to go on holidays to those places from other employment or making sacrifices elsewhere (not smoking or drinking?), its obvious the greater majority of your rental went into tax and your landlord will be taxed on capital appreciation also, youre happy enough to live in the rat infested hole because it affords you savings, if I lived anywhere with rats, Id either leave (leaving may not be an option for many or you) then at the least Id get in a company to deal with the rats professionally rather than live with the risks of that.
By the by, how much do you think you'd fork out to banks in interest if you were paying your own mortgage, will you then allow anyone to live in your property for no cost or even below a market rate?

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't believe tenancy laws are what's really influencing investor decisions not to purchase properties to let - it's the low return on investment and high tax rates. Unless you're a cash buyer, you're not making much of a profit after maintenance and your tax bill is paid. The risk of getting stuck with a dodgy tenant is probably a risk worth taking if the profits are high, which is why people are jumping into short-term lettings.

You are wrong, I agree with a certain amount of rent controls, but tenancy laws mainly crucified any landlord who was being decent and forced people to max out what they could get for fear of being locked into too low rates for being understanding. At least its known what the high tax rates are, I think there should be lower flat tax rates or tax on profits rather than incomes, its the govt that is raking the lions share, the landlord is a middleman and the tenant is getting crucified, the state isnt exactly incentivising anyone to provide accomodation and they arent doing it themselves, its all ill conceived knee jerk reactions. The risk of getting stuck with a dodgy tenant is not worth taking so people are leaving properties idle or getting out, it is not worth it if the costs are not being met.
If you think the risks are worth it you could jump into the market yourself, run the risk of not being able to fund a roof over someone elses head that the state wont provide and take it on the chin if they destroy the property and you are still in hoc for the cost.

Browney7 wrote: »

And that would be very awful value for the taxpayer/exchequer. The government can borrow cash for ten years at sub 1% - you're advocating they guarantee a rental yield of 5% and have no asset at the end of the ten years.

If so, then why arent they getting councils to build houses? as in previous decades? why are they even engaging private organisations to do this and letting them take in the profits? the state owns the land, why give it away? private landlords could have always existed and are probably necessary but there seems to be an agenda to make that impossible, I think any future of REITS in charge of the majority of property will be more mercenary.