RTB seeing the light!

Wanderer78 · 24-10-2019 1:05pm

beauf wrote: »

They don't care who it is or isn't working for. That's the basic core of this issue.

i guess it depends who you call 'they'? i do beleive our politicans do actually care about this problem, but are largely powerless to change it, and i suspect it doesnt matter whos in governement

beauf · 24-10-2019 1:09pm

If you look at housing trends in Europe since ww2 almost all are driven by govt policies and any change in them.

Wanderer78 · 24-10-2019 1:11pm

beauf wrote: »

If you look at housing trends in Europe since ww2 almost all are driven by govt policies and any change in them.

housing is extremely complex, no matter what some leaders say, the involvement of our political institutions and systems is only one element of it, but a critical one, as you pointed out

beauf · 24-10-2019 1:21pm

That's what studies into housing show.

Wanderer78 · 24-10-2019 1:23pm

beauf wrote: »

That's what studies into housing show.

they do indeed, governments have both positive and negative effects on housing markets, but not exclusively

The Student · 24-10-2019 1:38pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i guess it depends who you call 'they'? i do beleive our politicans do actually care about this problem, but are largely powerless to change it, and i suspect it doesnt matter whos in governement

I would argue that the politicians are not powerless to change it.

There is acceptance that we need more accommodation and that some of that we already have is not being fully utilized (houses left vacant because in some instances the anti landlord stance, the high rates of tax and the difficulty in evicting a non paying tenant).

So rather than encourage more landlords into the market the Govt decides to create the RTB and make it tenant favoured.

The result landlords leave the market, a property that was housing for example four adults is sold to a couple as their first property. So now we have two less bed spaces to rent. So in a time where supply is not meeting demand the Govt forces some landlords to leave the market and as a result a reduction in bed spaces.

Personally I don't think the Govt are capable of solving the situation, if they are seen to encourage the landlords people will go against the Govt, if they are seen to encourage quicker evictions for non payment of rent the people go against them.

What politician in their proper mind would want to do either of the above, their political career would be over. So they blame the landlords, they set up Approved Housing Bodies, they blame the local councils.

And while the blame game is happening the rental sector gets even more dysfunctional.

The sad part about this is that its the ordinary person who is actually suffering, the person who can't afford to rent, the small landlord who bought as a pension, or outgrew the property, the local taxi driver, the local electrician, the local shop keeper.

I firmly believe no politician or party actually has the ability to fix the problem. Housing is quickly catching up with Health as another problem that is getting bigger and bigger as each day passes and nobody seems capable of slowing the growing problem.

terrydel · 24-10-2019 3:24pm

The Student wrote: »

Maybe treat it as a business like any other. If you don't pay for the service it is not supplied.

The tax and quicker eviction would be enough for me personally. The tax payable is crazy, and not only that you pay PRSI on your rental income and get nothing in return for it as it is classed as unearned income Revenue in its wisdom charges you PRSI but you get nothing for it.

Let economics play its part eg supply and demand. Nobody is expecting anybody to bail out the landlords where they don't want or cant continue in the business. But to expect someone to pay a mortgage when they are not receiving their rent is ridiculous.

Using your sentiment of all landlords will eventually leave the market then the same can be said for tenants who either buy a property or are housed by the State.

The model of landlords with one or two properties actually would work if the playing field was leveled a bit. Institutional landlords don't tenants an inch, small landlords actually do.

Is the eviction thing really a problem tho? The only figures I've seen on it show overholding is a tiny issue in reality, not having a go but on boards like this and others I think it is exaggerated beyond belief. I was a landlord over a decade and never had an issue with it, know a good number of others who were also landlords and same thing. Yes it goes on, but I dont see it as the problem its made out to be.

SozBbz · 24-10-2019 3:34pm

terrydel wrote: »

Is the eviction thing really a problem tho? The only figures I've seen on it show overholding is a tiny issue in reality, not having a go but on boards like this and others I think it is exaggerated beyond belief. I was a landlord over a decade and never had an issue with it, know a good number of others who were also landlords and same thing. Yes it goes on, but I dont see it as the problem its made out to be.

I'm not sure its a volume issue per say.

But if you're the one unlucky LL who this happens to, then its a massive problem for you, especially if you only have one rented property.

The Student · 24-10-2019 3:37pm

terrydel wrote: »

Is the eviction thing really a problem tho? The only figures I've seen on it show overholding is a tiny issue in reality, not having a go but on boards like this and others I think it is exaggerated beyond belief. I was a landlord over a decade and never had an issue with it, know a good number of others who were also landlords and same thing. Yes it goes on, but I dont see it as the problem its made out to be.

If you only own a single property and you get caught then it is a massive problem. I personally know of a few landlords who have paid their tenants to leave a property. They took a business decision not to go down the RTB route.

Unfortunately this is never reported so the actual reported figs of evictions are not accurate.

riemann · 24-10-2019 3:43pm

handlemaster wrote: »

This post just shows your lack of understanding of how a proper property market should work. There should always be a mix of property owners in the market

Its fairly easy to understand. What we need is more government controlled/owned public housing.

House of cards will come falling down again soon. It's as if people never learn.

I wonder why 55,000 landlords sold up? Maybe because property prices have peaked and it was the right time to sell.

terrydel · 24-10-2019 4:11pm

riemann wrote: »

Its fairly easy to understand. What we need is more government controlled/owned public housing.

House of cards will come falling down again soon. It's as if people never learn.

I wonder why 55,000 landlords sold up? Maybe because property prices have peaked and it was the right time to sell.

Our government have zero interest in providing the levels required, so unless people vote for someone else, that situation will remain.
One thing that is clear is that the market cannot fix the problem, and is in fact exacerbating it.

The Student · 25-10-2019 8:31am

terrydel wrote: »

Our government have zero interest in providing the levels required, so unless people vote for someone else, that situation will remain.
One thing that is clear is that the market cannot fix the problem, and is in fact exacerbating it.

We need a cultural change in our mindset. We have people who don't pay either mortgage or rents (both private and social) and yet they are not evicted without going through a long arduous process and even then they are not evicted. We have this bizarre notion that everybody should be housed no matter what they do. At what point do we actually say enough is enough!

No matter what party/politician is voted into power this will not change, what politician will agree to an eviction of any sort?

Ironically if the market was allowed to function correctly it actually would go a long way towards fixing the problem. it may not fully fix it but it would certainly improve it.

Existing investors would be encouraged to stay in the market, new investors would be encouraged into the market thereby increasing the available number of properties to either rent or buy.

One of the reasons we have the issue we have is the constant interference by the State who have not provided the social housing for those who need it, have abdicated its responsibility onto the private sector and is then trying to control the private sector with the RTB and rent pressure zones etc.

What do people expect is going to happen the private sector is just going to take it.

terrydel · 25-10-2019 10:42am

The Student wrote: »

We need a cultural change in our mindset. We have people who don't pay either mortgage or rents (both private and social) and yet they are not evicted without going through a long arduous process and even then they are not evicted. We have this bizarre notion that everybody should be housed no matter what they do. At what point do we actually say enough is enough!

No matter what party/politician is voted into power this will not change, what politician will agree to an eviction of any sort?

Ironically if the market was allowed to function correctly it actually would go a long way towards fixing the problem. it may not fully fix it but it would certainly improve it.

Existing investors would be encouraged to stay in the market, new investors would be encouraged into the market thereby increasing the available number of properties to either rent or buy.

One of the reasons we have the issue we have is the constant interference by the State who have not provided the social housing for those who need it, have abdicated its responsibility onto the private sector and is then trying to control the private sector with the RTB and rent pressure zones etc.

What do people expect is going to happen the private sector is just going to take it.

I dont think the number of people who dont pay either mortgage or rent is that high, you will always have a % who play every system, but vast majority of people just want to get on and live their lives.
As for where do we draw the line, well my own personal opinion is that everyone should be housed and if the alternative is they end up or in hotels/inadequate temporary accomodation, thats no alternative at all. We should be a society, not an economy, and a society takes care of all those in it. I especially believe this when we have a situation where our government and those who vote for them have created a scenario where even many who want to house themselves and are willing to do so, cannot. So what do you do? Let them suffer?
As I said, you'll always have a small % who abuse the system and dont want to contribute, but that number is relatively tiny and given the opportunity most will do what they can to look after themselves if the system allows it. The rest need the support of others.

The_Conductor · 25-10-2019 10:53am

terrydel wrote: »

Is the eviction thing really a problem tho? The only figures I've seen on it show overholding is a tiny issue in reality, not having a go but on boards like this and others I think it is exaggerated beyond belief. I was a landlord over a decade and never had an issue with it, know a good number of others who were also landlords and same thing. Yes it goes on, but I dont see it as the problem its made out to be.

I have two siblings letting their sole properties who both, at different times, were blackmailed to pay tenants to leave properties. One of them subsequently had a tenant who caused 45k of damage (in Galway city) after there was structural damage to it by the tenant. That tenant is paying restitution at the rate of 5 Euro per week- which my sister realises will take 173 years to make good the damage- but she took the cases nevertheless- as she was so annoyed and devastated by the damage the tenant caused.

There aren't numbers out there- because they're not recorded anywhere- but many landlords don't see any point in taking cases to the RTB, esp. when even if the ruling is in their favour- they will never see a penny from the tenant- or if they do- its at such a low level that it is improbable that any loss of rent or damage will ever be made good.

In my siblings cases- they both own a single property- which they were living in up until they left the country during the downturn- and haven't returned to (yet anyway).

The system is rigged- there may be platitudes in the legislation- but they mean nothing if they are not enforceable- other than against landlords. A landlord has an asset and can be chased if they do anything wrong- a tenant simply pleads penury and gets off the hook- regardless of the extent of the damage they cause.

The system is rigged- as people are discovering- wholly aside from being made scapegoats- being held financially liable for a system that doesn't work- simply doesn't make the sector viable.

On the Brightside- all the landlords leaving the sector (there are, according to the RTB, 54,000 fewer landlords now than there were 4 years ago)- mean more property is hitting the market for people to buy.

There are some pools of property out there that *need* to be tapped if the sector is ever to work- esp the likes of the fair deal homes. I personally don't understand how or why those properties are being left vacant- that's just nuts.

The current situation where despite historically high rent levels, it doesn't make sense to be a landlord- is insane. Of course Threshold like to paint a different picture- but then again, they'd be out of a job if they didn't.

Moomoomacshoe · 25-10-2019 11:02am

Chiming in here..renting 15 plus years. In my 30s, I have 10 or so friends similar to give perspective plus conversations regularly with other tenants. Without exaggeration every single one of us have been given false termination notices so that the landlord can get tenants out to up the rent. Illegal rent hikes with tenants afraid to rock the boat.
90%of these properties bought circa late 80/early 90's. Complete greed. Have a look at the figures..its only now that tenants are finally taking these cases to the RTB but trust me there are hundreds more that go silently.
All I can see is greed. 5 of my friends are accidental landlords and happily keep their tenants without disruption, longterm, not raising the rent or doing shifty business, despite being at a loss having bought in the boom. Sadly these landlords are few and far between.

I literally could tell you story after story. Its complete greed and about time landlords are held accountable. Along with all the hedge funds coming in to make a killing..give me a break? Of course they are.. easy money.

Sorry but I am so sick of hearing poor me landlord stories. Its about time the tenants are heard.

The Student · 25-10-2019 11:19am

terrydel wrote: »

I dont think the number of people who dont pay either mortgage or rent is that high, you will always have a % who play every system, but vast majority of people just want to get on and live their lives.
As for where do we draw the line, well my own personal opinion is that everyone should be housed and if the alternative is they end up or in hotels/inadequate temporary accomodation, thats no alternative at all. We should be a society, not an economy, and a society takes care of all those in it. I especially believe this when we have a situation where our government and those who vote for them have created a scenario where even many who want to house themselves and are willing to do so, cannot. So what do you do? Let them suffer?
As I said, you'll always have a small % who abuse the system and dont want to contribute, but that number is relatively tiny and given the opportunity most will do what they can to look after themselves if the system allows it. The rest need the support of others.

I see you altered my post in your post. Was there a reason why you felt the need to alter it?

[U]Had rent pressure zones not come in what do you think would have happened? Rent would have continued to increase and we'd have 1000s homeless. I dont see how anyone can dispute that. The neoliberal government we have wasnt building new homes so the supply side wasnt going to get fixed, therefore something had to control the rent. I'd personally rather discommode some landlords as opposed to making an already awful homelessness crisis multiples worse[/U]

25-10-2019 11:24am

terrydel wrote: »

We should be a society, not an economy, and a society takes care of all those in it.

I find this union catchphrase hilarious.

I dare you to tell the guards/nurses/teachers/civil servants/various other vested interests that you are going to divert the funds from their pay rises to build a slew of social housing.

Tell them "we're a society and not an economy" and let us know here how you get on.

Cuddlesworth · 25-10-2019 11:43am

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

Sorry but I am so sick of hearing poor me landlord stories. Its about time the tenants are heard.

They are heard and it's a **** market for everybody.

Your mates could have taken cases with the RTB and they probably would have won. But they are afraid to because it rocks the boat in a market where they struggle to find another place. And they struggle to find another place because landlords are leaving the market in droves, because the market is ****e for them. Which leaves more and more of the ones you don't want, the slum landlords and the risky tenants. Which makes things worse for the rest, raising rents, making things more difficult and causing more landlords to leave.

Might sound stupid, but it's clearly happening.

beauf · 25-10-2019 11:48am

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

Chiming in here..renting 15 plus years. In my 30s, I have 10 or so friends similar to give perspective plus conversations regularly with other tenants. Without exaggeration every single one of us have been given false termination notices so that the landlord can get tenants out to up the rent. Illegal rent hikes with tenants afraid to rock the boat.
90%of these properties bought circa late 80/early 90's. Complete greed. Have a look at the figures..its only now that tenants are finally taking these cases to the RTB but trust me there are hundreds more that go silently.
All I can see is greed. 5 of my friends are accidental landlords and happily keep their tenants without disruption, longterm, not raising the rent or doing shifty business, despite being at a loss having bought in the boom. Sadly these landlords are few and far between.

I literally could tell you story after story. Its complete greed and about time landlords are held accountable. Along with all the hedge funds coming in to make a killing..give me a break? Of course they are.. easy money.

Sorry but I am so sick of hearing poor me landlord stories. Its about time the tenants are heard.

What would you suggest as a next step.
Ban private LL with less than 10 properties.
Fix/reduce rents at a low level even where loss making.
No evictions allowed.

The Student · 25-10-2019 12:50pm

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

Chiming in here..renting 15 plus years. In my 30s, I have 10 or so friends similar to give perspective plus conversations regularly with other tenants. Without exaggeration every single one of us have been given false termination notices so that the landlord can get tenants out to up the rent. Illegal rent hikes with tenants afraid to rock the boat.
90%of these properties bought circa late 80/early 90's. Complete greed. Have a look at the figures..its only now that tenants are finally taking these cases to the RTB but trust me there are hundreds more that go silently.
All I can see is greed. 5 of my friends are accidental landlords and happily keep their tenants without disruption, longterm, not raising the rent or doing shifty business, despite being at a loss having bought in the boom. Sadly these landlords are few and far between.

I literally could tell you story after story. Its complete greed and about time landlords are held accountable. Along with all the hedge funds coming in to make a killing..give me a break? Of course they are.. easy money.

Sorry but I am so sick of hearing poor me landlord stories. Its about time the tenants are heard.

Could I ask that you cast your mind back to 2011/2012 when rents fell through the floor. Would you be willing to set a min rent level somewhere between the current levels and the low levels for the above period?

People want a professional sector but when it does not suit the tenant then its greed but when it suits the tenant its "market forces".

You can't have it both ways!

terrydel · 25-10-2019 1:48pm

The Student wrote: »

I see you altered my post in your post. Was there a reason why you felt the need to alter it?

[U]Had rent pressure zones not come in what do you think would have happened? Rent would have continued to increase and we'd have 1000s homeless. I dont see how anyone can dispute that. The neoliberal government we have wasnt building new homes so the supply side wasnt going to get fixed, therefore something had to control the rent. I'd personally rather discommode some landlords as opposed to making an already awful homelessness crisis multiples worse[/U]

What? How can I alter your post?

terrydel · 25-10-2019 1:50pm

The Student wrote: »

I see you altered my post in your post. Was there a reason why you felt the need to alter it?

[U]Had rent pressure zones not come in what do you think would have happened? Rent would have continued to increase and we'd have 1000s homeless. I dont see how anyone can dispute that. The neoliberal government we have wasnt building new homes so the supply side wasnt going to get fixed, therefore something had to control the rent. I'd personally rather discommode some landlords as opposed to making an already awful homelessness crisis multiples worse[/U]

Where did I alter it? I quoted your post directly and did not change a single letter in it. Why would I bother? I was just replying with my opinions and nothing more, I had no issue with your post at all, just wanted to discuss it.
Thats a terrible accusation to make against me and I'm really angry over it.

I've just done a comparison of your original post and how I quoted it, exactly the same.
Thanks for the unfounded accusation which got me banned and warned from here.

The Student · 25-10-2019 2:51pm

terrydel wrote: »

Where did I alter it? I quoted your post directly and did not change a single letter in it. Why would I bother? I was just replying with my opinions and nothing more, I had no issue with your post at all, just wanted to discuss it.
Thats a terrible accusation to make against me and I'm really angry over it.

I've just done a comparison of your original post and how I quoted it, exactly the same.
Thanks for the unfounded accusation which got me banned and warned from here.

I have responded to your private message. If you want to have a public disagreement via this forum I will oblige you.

if you feel the moderator was unfair then why would they be the last to update your post. Surely they would investigate any accusation before taking any action?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 25-10-2019 3:02pm

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

easy money.

Sorry but I am so sick of hearing poor me landlord stories. Its about time the tenants are heard.

Those parts there... hilarious! :pac:

And if the money is sooo easy, why are LLs abandoning ship? Why aren't you a landlord? Why isn't everybody a landlord?

terrydel · 25-10-2019 3:42pm

Kingston Wet Kneecap wrote: »

Those parts there... hilarious! :pac:

And if the money is sooo easy, why are LLs abandoning ship? Why aren't you a landlord? Why isn't everybody a landlord?

Plenty are abandoning ship because property prices have peaked and they are cashing in.
Lots im sure are leaving because theyve had enough/arent making enough out of it etc etc.
But the narrative that they are leaving in their droves solely because they are oppressed is rubbish. Loads are willingly and happily leaving with a nice few quid profit in their hands.
I'd imagine he isnt a landlord most likely because he cant afford to be, same goes for the vast majority that arent landlords.

DubCount · 25-10-2019 8:05pm

The introduction of RPZ's was a significant kick to Landlords. Knowing that your property has a restriction on rent that is well below market value (probably because you were rewarding a good tenant) while the house/apartment next door can charge market value gets under your skin.

The biggest driver leavers though is the risk from bad tenants. Not many accidental landlords can afford to cover their own rent/mortgage and the investment mortgage while getting no rent for 2 years. With this risk, there are simply many easier ways to make money.

Certainly negative equity slowed down the exit for some landlords for a while, but the lack of possible future capital growth is not the driver.

garhjw · 25-10-2019 8:14pm

terrydel wrote: »

Plenty are abandoning ship because property prices have peaked and they are cashing in.
Lots im sure are leaving because theyve had enough/arent making enough out of it etc etc.
But the narrative that they are leaving in their droves solely because they are oppressed is rubbish. Loads are willingly and happily leaving with a nice few quid profit in their hands.
I'd imagine he isnt a landlord most likely because he cant afford to be, same goes for the vast majority that arent landlords.

Do you have any evidence of that?

rightmove · 26-10-2019 9:05am

As a landlord and tenants. Ok as landlord I left because my tenants were around 60% below market rate and that was fine if I still had the mechanism to up it at some point to say 80% of market rate. However eventually when my tenants left they had subletted and got a free house . I presume the overcrowding and sub letting was at market rate. Rtb is no good and you never bother with it as a landlord. Even with that the tenants stuffed me the last months rent and asked for extension!!! While not paying rent and sub letting the whole house..now I was a tenant also and my landlord asked me to leave as he was selling. I left in 3 months and bought as no where to rent. But it was all done without formal notices and rtb etc. When I needed 2 weeks extra at the end, he was fine with it. Government messed up market totally

rightmove · 26-10-2019 9:07am

Wont mention the mess the tenants left place in either

murphaph · 26-10-2019 3:37pm

beauf wrote: »

Berlin is going to have a 5yr rent freeze. Expect similar here shortly.

Won't work in Berlin and won't work in Ireland either.

I'm keeping an eye on the Berlin situation as I have a rental there as well. It'll almost certainly be challenged at constitutional court level and it's not clear what will happen there.

You'll see the same problem if it is legal... landlords will not be interested in building.

The only way to control rents is to ensure enough housing stock.

beauf · 26-10-2019 3:45pm

We said the same about rent caps. They haven't worked either. We still copied them.

murphaph · 26-10-2019 3:53pm

beauf wrote: »

We said the same about rent caps. They haven't worked either. We still copied them.

Most probably.

Varik · 26-10-2019 4:01pm

murphaph wrote: »

Won't work in Berlin and won't work in Ireland either.

I'm keeping an eye on the Berlin situation as I have a rental there as well. It'll almost certainly be challenged at constitutional court level and it's not clear what will happen there.

You'll see the same problem if it is legal... landlords will not be interested in building.

The only way to control rents is to ensure enough housing stock.

Difference is it won't be challenged here, the rpz is arguably already unconstitutional even the government's read that it was limited in scope and time frame is out the window now.

but unless one of the big REIT want to challenge it later no one else will be able too.

The Student · 26-10-2019 4:04pm

Varik wrote: »

Difference is it won't be challenged here, the rpz is arguably already unconstitutional even the government's read that it was limited in scope and time frame is out the window now.

but unless one of the big REIT want to challenge it later no one else will be able too.

Any update on what's happening with RPZ is it extended and if so till when.

beauf · 26-10-2019 4:07pm

The Student wrote: »

Any update on what's happening with RPZ is it extended and if so till when.

Expect it to become nation wide and as long as it takes for increased supply or reduced demand.

Varik · 26-10-2019 4:08pm

The Student wrote: »

Any update on what's happening with RPZ is it extended and if so till when.

Was to expire this December but now it's 2021.

The Student · 26-10-2019 4:42pm

Varik wrote: »

Was to expire this December but now it's 2021.

Thks.

The Student · 26-10-2019 4:43pm

beauf wrote: »

Expect it to become nation wide and as long as it takes for increased supply or reduced demand.

Thks

Fol20 · 26-10-2019 5:08pm

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

All I can see is greed.

5 of my friends are accidental landlords and happily keep their tenants without disruption, longterm, not raising the rent or doing shifty business, despite being at a loss having bought in the boom. Sadly these landlords are few and far between.

I literally could tell you story after story. Its complete greed and about time landlords are held accountable. Along with all the hedge funds coming in to make a killing..give me a break? Of course they are.. easy money.
.

Why exactly do you think people become landlords?
It’s not for the fun of it. It’s to make money.

Would you go to work and not get paid? I think not and why do you expect ll to accept to make a loss like your friends.

In your job are you ok to not get a pay rise every year/5years? Would you not expect the same as a ll?

It’s a business and you should stop expecting a private enterprise to do it for social reasons rather than purely financial.

Fol20 · 26-10-2019 5:14pm

terrydel wrote: »

Plenty are abandoning ship because property prices have peaked and they are cashing in.
Lots im sure are leaving because theyve had enough/arent making enough out of it etc etc.
But the narrative that they are leaving in their droves solely because they are oppressed is rubbish. Loads are willingly and happily leaving with a nice few quid profit in their hands.
I'd imagine he isnt a landlord most likely because he cant afford to be, same goes for the vast majority that arent landlords.

Yes a number of your points are correct as any given point in life, ll will leave the market for various reasons. The difference now though is that due to excessive legislation, ROI and risk is causing not enough new ll to enter the market to balance out the ones that are leaving.

terrydel · 26-10-2019 7:40pm

garhjw wrote: »

Do you have any evidence of that?

Evidence of what? That landlords are leaving for amongst other reasons the peak in price of their asset? Its common sense that plenty arevleaving for that reason, same as plenty are leaving because they are sick of it, not making enough from it etc. Are you saying this is not a factor?

The_Conductor · 26-10-2019 7:53pm

terrydel wrote: »

Evidence of what? That landlords are leaving for amongst other reasons the peak in price of their asset? Its common sense that plenty agree leaving for they reason, same as plenty are leaving because they are sick of it, not making enough from it etc. Are you saying this is not a factor?

According to the RTB- there is an overall reduction of 54,000 in the number of landlords in the country over the last 4 years. The bulk of this decline happened 2-3 years ago (according to the RTB's annual report) and not in 2018. While some landlords were undoubtedly locking in the increases in property prices (which have not caught up with previous peaks, despite suggestions to the contrary)- the bulk of the landlords who ran to the door did so while prices were still increasing by 4-6% per annum- and before the current falls that are being recorded in the greater Dublin area.

Keep in mind the RTB report published in July- is only up to December 2018- and does not capture the peak and subsequent falls in Dublin property prices in 2019 (and ongoing).

The regulatory environment and the manner in which landlords have been scapegoated for the government's shortcomings- have not enamored landlords to enter the sector- and have actively been a factor in landlords leaving the sector.

The provision of social housing to those who are incapable of housing themselves (for whatever reason- and there are many, many of which are through absolutely no fault of their own)- should never have been offloaded on the private sector.

Keep in mind- throughout the worsening of the homeless crisis- local authorities in Ireland have sold 4,512 private residences since January 2014 (according to a PQ answered by the Minister in the Dáil recently). Local authorities are continuing to sell properties. That single factor is the height of absolute madness- and the number of properties sold in the last 5 years is more that sufficient to cater for the entirety of the current homeless crisis. Instead- the government have insisted on outsourcing the homeless issue to the private sector.

The sole factor, the sale of pre-existing local authority housing stock- would have been sufficient to cater for the current official homeless numbers. Why are inconvenient truths like this not trumpeted in a similar manner to all the more convenient scapegoats?

overkill602 · 26-10-2019 10:58pm

The light can never be seen if someone no matter how bad they are, there is nowhere to put them.
The same with criminals with 100+ convictions on bail, or manslaughter suspended sentences.
Successive guberments have never made any provision for extra social ,mental or criminal accommodation.
Just as default mortgage holders, non-rent paying are subject to similar leniency.
Large LL have adapted and scrutinize more to avoid the risk smaller ones hung out to dry
RTB will still have to avoid delay evictions similar to the banks on there not repossessing
Problem is many LLs can’t afford the risk could end up being a state dependent themselves.
People have to live even those who cannot unassisted should be helped more, those who won’t should worked on.

rightmove · 27-10-2019 9:55am

The extension of the rpz in time and geography will result in another 10or 20k LL leaving and tenants will pay in the end along with the LL. Well done Simon and eoghan , take a bow. Doubt these 2 ever rented in their lives

Moomoomacshoe · 28-10-2019 12:21am

Fol20 wrote: »

Why exactly do you think people become landlords?
It’s not for the fun of it. It’s to make money.

Would you go to work and not get paid? I think not and why do you expect ll to accept to make a loss like your friends.

In your job are you ok to not get a pay rise every year/5years? Would you not expect the same as a ll?

It’s a business and you should stop expecting a private enterprise to do it for social reasons rather than purely financial.

There you go..my point is im sick of the poor LL mouth. Of course it is a business..noone expects anyone to make zero profit..i assure you most are just getting greedier and the greed has consumed them.

It's a business therefore LL should abide by the rules; you cant just throw people out to illegally hike up rents. Or expect tenants to sit quietly dont rock the boat, the amount of stuff they get away with beggars belief. Why should we feel sorry for LL ...if its a business then follow the rules, simple.

I have zero sympathy sorry I've seen so much as I've said.

beauf · 28-10-2019 12:32am

It reminds me someone at work who never listens, ignores all advice. Then when their project is a huge disaster will claim no one warned them.

Best to walk away and leave them to it.

Fol20 · 28-10-2019 2:52am

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

There you go..my point is im sick of the poor LL mouth. Of course it is a business..noone expects anyone to make zero profit..i assure you most are just getting greedier and the greed has consumed them.

It's a business therefore LL should abide by the rules; you cant just throw people out to illegally hike up rents. Or expect tenants to sit quietly dont rock the boat, the amount of stuff they get away with beggars belief. Why should we feel sorry for LL ...if its a business then follow the rules, simple.

I have zero sympathy sorry I've seen so much as I've said.

Yes they should abide by the rules but the goal posts are being changed so often, it can be hard to keep up.

Rules will always have grey areas and ll will use these to their advantage if required. Eg renovating property to increase rent and evict a perfectly good tenant instead of simply increasing rent. They can always bring in more laws but there will always be a gap that can be used. It should be free market rather than the rpz as this only hurts good ll and tenants alike.

Again. Why do you call it greed if you accept it’s a business. The objective of running a business is to maximise profits. If a ll increases rent he is fulfilling his objectives of a business.Again I will relate it to a normal day job. If you ask for a pay rise or move to another company for better money, is this also greed?

The same can also be said for bad tenants. There are both good and bad tenants and ll.

28-10-2019 9:34am

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

There you go..my point is im sick of the poor LL mouth. Of course it is a business..noone expects anyone to make zero profit..i assure you most are just getting greedier and the greed has consumed them.

It's a business therefore LL should abide by the rules; you cant just throw people out to illegally hike up rents. Or expect tenants to sit quietly dont rock the boat, the amount of stuff they get away with beggars belief. Why should we feel sorry for LL ...if its a business then follow the rules, simple.

I have zero sympathy sorry I've seen so much as I've said.

If it’s a business, it should work like any other business, if the service is not paid for or abused, the service should be withdrawn. But we all know it is not like any other business.

You are absolutely correct when you say LL are in it for profit, or in the case of those in negative equity, to survive until they loss reduces, why on God’s earth would they be in it to make a loss or just break even? That would be nonsensical, do you work for free or make investments to make a loss? If your bank said that had an investment opportunity that would make you a loss every year, would you invest?

I’m not a poor landlord, but I am a wary one, and even though rents have increased since I bought during the recession, I am selling up as tenants move out. I am literally sitting at my desk reading through a sale contract for a rental property. Who needs the hassle?

28-10-2019 9:53am

Varik wrote: »

Difference is it won't be challenged here, the rpz is arguably already unconstitutional even the government's read that it was limited in scope and time frame is out the window now.

but unless one of the big REIT want to challenge it later no one else will be able too.

Why would you need to challenge it, when you can just ignore it. A couple of months ago on the late night Matt Cooper show they said rents had increased 14% in Dublin in one year, after the RPZ came in. A couple of weeks ago there was an article in The Cork Examiner saying there had not been one application for planning since new legislation about short lets was introduced, that is zero applications in the.city of Cork.

If a rent freeze is introduced, it would be ignored too. Bad legislation leads to bad compliance. Unfortunately our housing minister is too inept to understand that making the rental market less appealing for Landlords just makes a bad situation much worse. To increase stock, you have to entice investors, no investors, no housing stock, the Government aren’t going to build them.

rightmove · 28-10-2019 10:02am

I love all this talk of it being a business. Most accidental LL were way off market rate precisely because they didn't want the grief of looking at it like a business. If the tenants were not causing hassle the rent remained low. The 4% crap changed that and the cultural shift towards litigious tenancies caused by the introduction and extension of the powers of the rtb changed all that. 50k LL gone. Trust me I only know one accidental LL that ever used the word business when referring to renting out his property.

RTB seeing the light!

Comments