The Irish Times: Unpaid rent, destroyed properties: Landlordsâ€™ tales from the renta

The_Conductor · 24-05-2019 3:13pm #1

Very interesting article in yesterday's Irish Times:

The Irish Times: Unpaid rent, destroyed properties: Landlords’ tales from the rental market.

In the case described in the article, the landlord has lost over 40k in rent and has 50k in damage to the property. The property is now the subject of a receivership- as the landlord was incapable of paying the mortgage on it and living elsewhere- all the while the tenant frustrated the process to get him out of the property- despite not paying rent.

The landlord took a case to the RTB- and won (the tenant randomly stopped paying rent- the landlord issued the requisite notices of arrears etc- to no avail).
The tenant appealed the judgement- and lost.
The tenant then took a case to the workplace relations commission- claiming discrimination- and lost.
The tenant took a highcourt case- and also lost.

Now- the property is being repossessed by the bank.

Is it any wonder that landlords are heading to the door?

Its all well and good (and indeed- right) that tenants should have security of tenure in *their* home- however, if/when there are cases like this- where the tenant games the system- there really should be a streamlined process to get them out of the property if they stop paying rent.

Wonder what the property is- that commanded a rent of 3,300 per month!

NIMAN · 24-05-2019 3:15pm

Won't get much media attention, doesn't fit the narrative of poor downtrodden tenants.

Gumbo · 24-05-2019 3:17pm

About time someone printed something to show the negative spin towards landlords.
It got quite a positive feedback from posters on FB, as little as that means !

amcalester · 24-05-2019 3:22pm

All some people will see is €3,300 per month rent and think screw the landlord.

Cuddlesworth · 24-05-2019 3:28pm

You missed the bit at the end, its the second time for him. He already was 50k in the hole before that one.

CoffeeBean2 · 24-05-2019 7:29pm

But he's a LL and can well afford it, after all he has more than one property. God love him. If he had left the hard up tenants alone, they probably wouldn't have needed to destroy the place.

We need to take care of the people that don't want to provide for themselves and squeeze those that do.

handlemaster · 24-05-2019 7:33pm

amcalester wrote: »

All some people will see is €3,300 per month rent and think screw the landlord.

The tenant that would be able to prove over 3k per month was managible must be on a great salary.

enricoh · 24-05-2019 7:35pm

He's not very good at picking tenants, when it costs 50k when you pick a dud, i would be doing a lot more research!

The_Conductor · 24-05-2019 8:16pm

enricoh wrote: »

He's not very good at picking tenants, when it costs 50k when you pick a dud, i would be doing a lot more research!

You can do all the research in the world- and still end up with a dud.
As it stands- tenants can have any findings made against them taken down off the RTB website- contrary to the report in the Irish Times- so even if there are significant misdeeds- unless the landlord decides to invest the time and effort in pursuing the tenant- its not going to show up in any searches people do.

The landlord in the article- is getting EUR50 a month- from a previous tenant who ran up arrears of 50k.

There is a reasonable presumption that if someone is renting a unit in D4- that they're going to be of a certain calibre- I know I could never ever dream to afford to rent in D4- nor would I try- this landlord has gotten caught by at least 2 people on this property (no idea from the article whether or not he has additional units- however, the way its worded, I suspect not).

The system is setup to protect tenants at all costs- even if they destroy property and don't pay rent. Anyone who sticks their necks up and points out the inequity of some tenants getting away with this behaviour- gets strips torn out of them. You cannot mitigate against criminal behaviour- when society and the law is stacked against you. The law- meanwhile- is meandering around the place to suit political ends- whatever makes good media- gets pushed- and crucifying landlords- while ignoring the likes of this guy's tenants and their mayhem- is what sells papers.

The Irish Times is going out on a limb even publishing articles like this- you quite simply do not get the other side of the equation in the Irish media- its all about the poor tenant- even where the poor tenant has taken a high spec unit in D4 and thrashed it- while availing of 2 years rent free accommodation- it simply is politically incorrect to call out any tenants on the actions of the few who cause such misery and hardship all round.

The RTB *is not fit for purpose*. Ideally- it should be disbanded- and a neutral body take its place- where tenants and landlords are both treated in a fair but neutral manner- and there is an expectation that both tenants and landlords will obey the law. In addition- the manner in which a non-paying tenant can play the system for 2+ years availing of rent-free accommodation- or indeed the manner in which a landlord owed 50k is only repaid at EUR50 a month- simply is inequitable- and a recipe to get any sane landlords the hell out of the system ASAP.

On the brightside- all those landlords exiting the system- are making additional units available to buy on the market for owner-occupiers- however, the manner in which the owner occupiers first time buyer inducement doesn't include second hand property- effectively devalues secondhand property by a minimum of 20k per unit.

The whole sector is so messed up- its quite unbelievable just how screwed up it is.

Sonny noggs · 24-05-2019 8:19pm

Animals. The tenants are probably causing hassle for a new landlord, building up arrears and wrecking the gaff again, and nothing the new landlord can do about it either.

Yer Da sells Avon · 24-05-2019 8:31pm

kceire wrote: »

About time someone printed something to show the negative spin towards landlords.
It got quite a positive feedback from posters on FB, as little as that means !

<SNIP>

Graham · 24-05-2019 8:34pm

Mod Note

Yer Da sells Avon, please read the forum charter before posting in Accommodation & property again.

Yer Da sells Avon · 24-05-2019 8:45pm

Graham wrote: »

Mod Note

Yer Da sells Avon, please read the forum charter before posting in Accommodation & property again.

I've just done that. Can you tell me which specific part of the charter my post breached?

Sonny noggs · 24-05-2019 8:47pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I've just done that. Can you tell me which specific part of the charter my post breached?

Probably trolling

The_Conductor · 24-05-2019 8:49pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Perhaps if landlords (almost every one of them) weren't ripping people off, there wouldn't be a 'negative spin' against them. The fact that current levels of demand allow them to charge astronomical prices does not make it morally acceptable.

The average small landlord is paying up to 54% in tax- and as they have been in the sector for a protracted period of time- have been RPZ'ed at levels significantly below those that new units owned by the REITs- who often are structured in such a manner to not pay tax (at all).

3,300 for a house in D4- would not be startling even in bad times- its D4 after-all- however, a commensurate rate elsewhere- would be an entirely different story.

We discussed taxation policy in this forum before- a lot of smaller landlords thought a flatrate deduction of perhaps 20-25% would be fair and reasonable- providing it was applied across the board- and all landlords were treated in a similar manner.

Currently- the Revenue Commissioners- are the main beneficiaries of rent from small landlords- and the taxpayers and tenants of the country- are haemorhaging money to the REITs- who are doing what they do- and hoovering up cash sloshing around the sector. And why wouldn't they- when they don't have to pay tax.

I, for one- think it would be great for rents to fall- 30-40% and a flatrate deduction of perhaps 20-25% be made directly, on a monthly basis, to the Revenue Commissioners. Outside of that- both tenants and landlords could do whatever the hell they want.

The sector- as it stands- is wholly unsustainable. Rents are too high. People's accommodation costs- as a percentage of their pay- are unsustainable. Rent increases- are vastly in excess the rates of general inflation (and people's pay). Different types of landlords- are treated in very different manners. The people's right to accommodation- as enshrined in UN conventions- has been outsourced to the private sector- who simultaneously- are having their feet kicked from under them.

It simply doesn't add up- and it is very obvious that different government ministers, quite simply, don't talk to one another.

Pandering to the media- is all well and good-however, and as the government are discovering- there is the law of cause and effect- and at the end of the day, if a significant cohort of landlords leg it to the door- the government are going to be the ones with egg on their face- its all well and good having a bogeyman in the corner to pour scorn on- but if the bogeyman eventually just gives up and fecks off- well, then you've no bogeyman, and whether you like it or not- you're left holding the baby.

We need massive construction of social and affordable housing- in high density settings- as close to our urban centres as possible. Anything less than this- is an abomination- that is going to come back and bite us all in future years. It may not be immediately apparent- but it will be. Unfortunately the Irish politicians and the Irish electorate- have a remarkable capacity to not learn lessons from our past mistakes.

Spanish Eyes · 24-05-2019 9:15pm

Do REITS and other apartment block owning companies accept HAP? They may not discriminate but who checks it out?

If they are only in it for the so called professional person or couple, who then houses the families and others? That is where the "amateur" landlord stepped in. But they are going, going, nearly gone now.

The_Conductor · 24-05-2019 9:30pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Do REITS and other apartment block owning companies accept HAP? They may not discriminate but who checks it out?

If they are only in it for the so called professional person or couple, who then houses the families and others? That is where the "amateur" landlord stepped in. But they are going, going, nearly gone now.

Legally they have to accept HAP (and other payments). However- if they are letting a new unit that doesn't have a previous rent associated with it- they can charge whatever the market will bear- which can be significantly above any HAP levels. So- while technically they aren't refusing to accept HAP- they are setting the rent at a level whereby HAP recipients simply aren't in a position to compete with private sector renters (who themselves- are paying too much, as a percentage of their net income on rent- but they simply don't feel they have any alternate but to do so).

Something has to give- rent levels are too high- and the manner in which REITs can buy up entire blocks off the plans and charge whatever the hell they like- because people don't have any other option- is abhorent.

We need fair rents- and we need a fair and equitable taxation system. Separately- we need a fair and neutral body to arbitrate in disputes between landlords and tenants- without any completely mad time scales in cases (the landlord in the article at the start of this thread- has been waiting two years for a hearing- and still doesn't have a date. Its very two-faced for the RTB to point at 6 weeks for arbitration- if arbitration is only the first of many steps- the sum of which stretches into literally years in duration.

tigger123 · 24-05-2019 9:43pm

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

The_Conductor · 24-05-2019 9:45pm

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

They are- perception is that property has peaked- and given the regulatory regime and how difficult it is becoming to operate in the sector, landlords are selling up- and investing elsewhere (often property in other EU countries).

Mad_maxx · 24-05-2019 10:38pm

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

For another thread but the Irish tax system is very unfavourable for equity fund investors, people really are steered towards property

CollyFlower · 25-05-2019 12:29am

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

If you run a business you should expect payment for that service.... Being a landlord is a high risk investment. It all comes down to the quality of tenants you have., then again you're still taking a risk.

YipeeDee · 25-05-2019 12:56am

kceire wrote: »

About time someone printed something to show the negative spin towards landlords.
It got quite a positive feedback from posters on FB, as little as that means !

@KCeire, Thanks for sharing. Have just read the article and the comments on FB.
The tone appears to have changed from when you originally posted.
The venom being spewed is just horrendous.
Makes me all the more eager to get out of the rental market as soon as possible.

pwurple · 25-05-2019 12:57am

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

Good idea!

They are, in their droves. Note the massive shortage of rental accommodation.

overkill602 · 25-05-2019 5:01am

Try finding a place to rent in dublin on any search engine you want clearly current policy driven by ridiculous private members bills has encouraged a mass exit before a door maybe closed to even stop that...

garhjw · 25-05-2019 7:27am

Which of the loser parties on the left wants a “right to housing” inserted into the constitution? The fact is that some people, the tenant in this case, deserve to be homeless.

Gumbo · 25-05-2019 8:36am

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

That’s what’s happening on the ground.
Evident by the back of rental properties available, i thought that was obvious?

Wanderer78 · 25-05-2019 9:57am

garhjw wrote:

Which of the loser parties on the left wants a â€œright to housingâ€ inserted into the constitution? The fact is that some people, the tenant in this case, deserve to be homeless.

Then what do we do with them?

We ve successfully exposed both the tenant and landlord, what a bloody mess

garhjw · 25-05-2019 10:14am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Then what do we do with them?

We ve successfully exposed both the tenant and landlord, what a bloody mess

They should be on the street.

The_Conductor · 25-05-2019 10:15am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Then what do we do with them?

We ve successfully exposed both the tenant and landlord, what a bloody mess

We move away from the model of outsourcing accommodation to those who are incapable of housing themselves, to the private sector- and build both social housing developments- and affordable housing developments.

The mess has been brewing since the local authorities really went to town divesting their local authority housing stocks without replacement them on a quid-pro-quo basis with new stock.

We are still, even now, selling local authority dwellings (at discounts of up to 40% off open market selling prices- to sitting tenants). In the middle of a housing crisis........ This is nuts.

The government don't have the gonads to admit they screwed up- and that their chosen manner of doing away with council/local authority estates- has not worked.

We have a plethora of other issues and collateral damage- such as the REITs buying up entire blocks of apartments and housing estates- esp. in the Dublin area- driving up the asking rents for everyone else- that though is as a result of other (populist) policies.

The Minister and his predecessors- and the government in general- are playing a populist game- playing to the lowest common denominator- however, its based on the premise that they have someone else to blame. Unfortunately for them- the chosen baddie (the landlords)- have a finite amount of abuse they can put up with- and then some- and that has been surpassed- and they are voting with their feet- and exiting.

Given that property is no longer increasing at unusual rates- and is actually falling in some Dublin areas- the logical and sane thing to do- in light of an increasingly onerous regulatory environment- is to sell and get out of the sector. What those sellers do with their money- is another thing altogether- however, you can be certain its not going back into the rental sector- these people are not thick.........

I don't know who the Minister has advising him- or whether he is heeding their advice- however, he has certainly dropped the ball and appears to have no cognisance whatsoever of what is happening on the ground. Add a large dollop of condescension into the mix- a-la his comments on how younger people should enjoy the new shared accommodation hostels- and you really have to laugh at just how divorced he is from reality.

Wanderer78 · 25-05-2019 10:16am

garhjw wrote:

They should be on the street.

Unfortunately I think that says more about you than them. Of course some humans behave dreadfully at times, does this mean we should simply discard them on the streets or in a cell?

amcalester · 25-05-2019 10:19am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Unfortunately I think that says more about you than them. Of course some humans behave dreadfully at times, does this mean we should simply discard them on the streets or in a cell?

Eh yeah, and if/when they learn to play nice they can be welcomed back into the fold.

garhjw · 25-05-2019 10:33am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Unfortunately I think that says more about you than them. Of course some humans behave dreadfully at times, does this mean we should simply discard them on the streets or in a cell?

Yes we should discard them if they decide not to behave like a normal person. They make a decision and should deal with the consequences.

The_Conductor · 25-05-2019 10:35am

garhjw wrote: »

They make a decision and should deal with the consequences.

At present- there are no consequences for them.
That is the knux of the problem.
Why bother subscribing to social norms- when they can have it all?

Wanderer78 · 25-05-2019 11:45am

amcalester wrote: »

Eh yeah, and if/when they learn to play nice they can be welcomed back into the fold.

garhjw wrote: »

Yes we should discard them if they decide not to behave like a normal person. They make a decision and should deal with the consequences.

The_Conductor wrote: »

At present- there are no consequences for them.
That is the knux of the problem.
Why bother subscribing to social norms- when they can have it all?

this problem has complexity at all levels. some humans simply cannot help themselves, we dont live in a perfect world whereby we all have equal opportunities in life

garhjw · 25-05-2019 11:51am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this problem has complexity at all levels. some humans simply cannot help themselves, we dont live in a perfect world whereby we all have equal opportunities in life

Nonsense. In this case the tenant knew what they were doing gaming the system. Don’t try to disguise it with societal issues. Some people are just bad.

Wanderer78 · 25-05-2019 11:56am

garhjw wrote: »

Nonsense. In this case the tenant knew what they were doing gaming the system. Don’t try to disguise it with societal issues. Some people are just bad.

so what should we do with these 'bad' people?

garhjw · 25-05-2019 11:58am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so what should we do with these 'bad' people?

Prosecute and imprisonment where appropriate. Homeless if they can’t respect property which doesn’t belong to them.

The Student · 25-05-2019 12:02pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this problem has complexity at all levels. some humans simply cannot help themselves, we dont live in a perfect world whereby we all have equal opportunities in life

Herein lies the problem, we have people similar to yourself offer a justification/excuse for peoples behavior. Some people are bad and the quicker all sides agree to deal with these people the better it will be for the majority of people.

There should be consequences for those who do wrong otherwise the division between tenants and landlords will increase.

Remember we are all suffering because of the actions of the minority who act with complete impunity.

Wanderer78 · 25-05-2019 12:02pm

garhjw wrote: »

Prosecute and imprisonment where appropriate. Homeless if they can’t respect property which doesn’t belong to them.

does/would this actually work, does imprisoning people actually work?

The Student · 25-05-2019 12:09pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so what should we do with these 'bad' people?

Evict them and introduce for example a three strike rule with the council. If you get three strikes the State no longer has a legal responsibility to house you. You are on your own. This would not be a black and white rule to take account of those with mental health issues.

But those who cause misery for communities should be held accountable for there actions.

Speed up evictions in the private sector rather than just moving the problem from social housing to private housing via rental properties.

Wanderer78 · 25-05-2019 12:16pm

The Student wrote: »

Evict them and introduce for example a three strike rule with the council. If you get three strikes the State no longer has a legal responsibility to house you. You are on your own. This would not be a black and white rule to take account of those with mental health issues.

But those who cause misery for communities should be held accountable for there actions.

Speed up evictions in the private sector rather than just moving the problem from social housing to private housing via rental properties.

people who are more conservatively justified just love their 3 strikes stuff, does this stuff actually work, does it actually help to resolve complex social issues? if leaving people 'on their own', would this actually resolve issues, or simply introduce more complex ones? by moving our housing policies more towards an 'on your own' approach, i.e more towards a privatised approach, how have those that have been unable to 'do their own' faired out?

with roughly 50% of inmates engaging in criminal activities after incarceration does this approach actually work?

again, im in agreement, these 'bad' people need to be dealt with, our current policies are exposing both tenant and landlord, i.e. both are getting screwed.

The Student · 25-05-2019 12:36pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

people who are more conservatively justified just love their 3 strikes stuff, does this stuff actually work, does it actually help to resolve complex social issues? if leaving people 'on their own', would this actually resolve issues, or simply introduce more complex ones? by moving our housing policies more towards an 'on your own' approach, i.e more towards a privatised approach, how have those that have been unable to 'do their own' faired out?

with roughly 50% of inmates engaging in criminal activities after incarceration does this approach actually work?

again, im in agreement, these 'bad' people need to be dealt with, our current policies are exposing both tenant and landlord, i.e. both are getting screwed.

I personally don't hold with the excuse of social depravation as a justification for some peoples behavior. The majority of people are good and we have proven in some instances we cant change people no matter how much support we give them no matter how much counselling we give them.

If people wont stay within societal norms then we need to look at other ways to deal with them. If it means keeping a repeat criminal offender in prison then so be it. If it means housing someone in the arse end of nowhere with only foodstamps to survive then so be it.

If there were consequences for bad behaviour then others may change their behavior aswell.

Wanderer78 · 25-05-2019 12:55pm

The Student wrote: »

I personally don't hold with the excuse of social depravation as a justification for some peoples behavior. The majority of people are good and we have proven in some instances we cant change people no matter how much support we give them no matter how much counselling we give them.

If people wont stay within societal norms then we need to look at other ways to deal with them. If it means keeping a repeat criminal offender in prison then so be it. If it means housing someone in the arse end of nowhere with only foodstamps to survive then so be it.

If there were consequences for bad behaviour then others may change their behavior aswell.

so effectively we discard people if they dont fit the societal norm?

bare in mind, some humans show little of no signs of aderring to societal norms no matter what approaches are taken, whether it be by 'punishment' methods via our judicial system, again, we dont live in a world of equal opportunities, we dont live in a perfect world, and probably never will. its also important to realise, many of these individuals are actually born with pre-dispositions or disorders, that severally curtails their abilities to achieve the goals of others, such as owning your own home, or creating a successful career etc, add that to complex environmental situations, generally results in very very complex problems. again, we dont live in a perfect world, so lets not pretend we do

handlemaster · 25-05-2019 1:07pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

You can do all the research in the world- and still end up with a dud.
As it stands- tenants can have any findings made against them taken down off the RTB website- contrary to the report in the Irish Times- so even if there are significant misdeeds- unless the landlord decides to invest the time and effort in pursuing the tenant- its not going to show up in any searches people do.

The landlord in the article- is getting EUR50 a month- from a previous tenant who ran up arrears of 50k.

There is a reasonable presumption that if someone is renting a unit in D4- that they're going to be of a certain calibre- I know I could never ever dream to afford to rent in D4- nor would I try- this landlord has gotten caught by at least 2 people on this property (no idea from the article whether or not he has additional units- however, the way its worded, I suspect not).

The system is setup to protect tenants at all costs- even if they destroy property and don't pay rent. Anyone who sticks their necks up and points out the inequity of some tenants getting away with this behaviour- gets strips torn out of them. You cannot mitigate against criminal behaviour- when society and the law is stacked against you. The law- meanwhile- is meandering around the place to suit political ends- whatever makes good media- gets pushed- and crucifying landlords- while ignoring the likes of this guy's tenants and their mayhem- is what sells papers.

The Irish Times is going out on a limb even publishing articles like this- you quite simply do not get the other side of the equation in the Irish media- its all about the poor tenant- even where the poor tenant has taken a high spec unit in D4 and thrashed it- while availing of 2 years rent free accommodation- it simply is politically incorrect to call out any tenants on the actions of the few who cause such misery and hardship all round.

The RTB *is not fit for purpose*. Ideally- it should be disbanded- and a neutral body take its place- where tenants and landlords are both treated in a fair but neutral manner- and there is an expectation that both tenants and landlords will obey the law. In addition- the manner in which a non-paying tenant can play the system for 2+ years availing of rent-free accommodation- or indeed the manner in which a landlord owed 50k is only repaid at EUR50 a month- simply is inequitable- and a recipe to get any sane landlords the hell out of the system ASAP.

On the brightside- all those landlords exiting the system- are making additional units available to buy on the market for owner-occupiers- however, the manner in which the owner occupiers first time buyer inducement doesn't include second hand property- effectively devalues secondhand property by a minimum of 20k per unit.

The whole sector is so messed up- its quite unbelievable just how screwed up it is.

Nicely summed up

The Student · 25-05-2019 1:07pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so effectively we discard people if they dont fit the societal norm?

bare in mind, some humans show little of no signs of aderring to societal norms no matter what approaches are taken, whether it be by 'punishment' methods via our judicial system, again, we dont live in a world of equal opportunities, we dont live in a perfect world, and probably never will. its also important to realise, many of these individuals are actually born with pre-dispositions or disorders, that severally curtails their abilities to achieve the goals of others, such as owning your own home, or creating a successful career etc, add that to complex environmental situations, generally results in very very complex problems. again, we dont live in a perfect world, so lets not pretend we do

You are interpreting what I said as either black or white. You don't use the same rules for everyone but at some point you have to say stop. Societal norms dictate if you murder you are imprisoned. We them reduce sentences for mitigating circumstances yet the families of the victim are forgotten. The majority of people in social areas are the nicest you will ever meet yet they must suffer daily anti social issues because we are looking after the minority at the expense of the majority.

Mad_maxx · 25-05-2019 1:54pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this problem has complexity at all levels. some humans simply cannot help themselves, we dont live in a perfect world whereby we all have equal opportunities in life

I pity your grim pessimism, your expectations are so low when it comes to some people, you don't even think they can avoid living like pigs

Pkiernan · 25-05-2019 2:10pm

Question for the far left tenant sympathisers:

Imagine you had a job.
Your employer stops paying you.
You refuse to go to work.
You get fined 20 grand for refusing to work.

Sound reasonable?

sk8board · 25-05-2019 5:07pm

Full time LL here.

The numbers are high, but the arrears are about 1 year of rent, pretty normal for a tenant who goes all the way through notifications, RTB judgement, appeals and court. If it was a 2 bed in a rural town, the same arrears would be €10k and this article wouldn’t even be published.

I was asked just last week why i don’t just sell everything and buy one big property in the city center with a huge rent. Naturally, this is why.

2/3s of all LLs own one property. The investment risks are simply massive and the single biggest risk to manage is a delinquent tenant (not lower rents, or a drop in house prices, or repair bills).
If one of my tenants stops paying the rent, I’m down x% of my income for a period of time while we go through the process, whereas this LL is basically f6€ked.

The current issue is too many amateur LLs, who don’t want to be LLs, reluctantly trying to comply with the controls and regulations, but want to hold on to a property asset, and are screwed on tax as they have other full time job income, have no incentive to stay, but lots of incentive to sell.
The RTB annual report bears this out - 212k LLs in 2012, and 22k places on daft, with 165k today and 3k places on daft.

The LL number will continue to fall now that capital appreciation is topping out.

The RTB reports have not show the true fall in amateur LLs as they started including all the Approved housing boards tenancies last year.

lcwill · 25-05-2019 11:11pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

For another thread but the Irish tax system is very unfavourable for equity fund investors, people really are steered towards property

I think this must be a big part of it. Probably a lot of landlords would not consider taking on all this hassle if they had the equivalent of an ISA to put money into, and didn't have such ridiculous taxation of ETFs.

padd b1975 · 26-05-2019 10:44am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Then what do we do with them?

We ve successfully exposed both the tenant and landlord, what a bloody mess

Tell them to grow up and familiarise themselves with the concept of personal responsibility for starters.

Samuel T. Cogley · 27-05-2019 11:14am

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/people-before-profit-and-solidarity-fail-to-galvanise-voters-1.3905141?fbclid=IwAR3LQlwX5GOfETPL25a--lZ5ophyRnccStBdAVOPkctqkLH51oW9c9Q6sZc

Another interesting piece in the IT. This time about the Loony Left not getting the votes they were expecting over the housing crisis. Is it a hope beyond hope that people are realising that continually screwing LL's is not actually the way to keep them in the market?

The Irish Times: Unpaid rent, destroyed properties: Landlordsâ€™ tales from the renta

Comments