Property Market 2019

Fol20 · 07-03-2019 3:10pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I thought you must have got the size wrong because 10sqm sounds absolutely horrendous. Turns out it's true but they are horrendous and not even cheap.

https://www.green-acres.fr/en/properties/56363a-458.htm

€85,000 for that tiny piece of crap! That is not the solution to our housing issues.

Well you cant have it both ways. You want a large place that is cheap. Be realistic. This is not going to happen.At least if you have places like above, it provides more choice in the market. Small studio that suit single people/couple that dont want to share and at least get a shot at having their own place. You would be surprised at how well you can manage space when its tight.

Its not ideal when you get older but it provides more options and thats what we need. Its like going into a super market, you can go for the tesco milk or you can go for the cmp milk. Choice is king and thats why they could be good.

charlietheminxx · 07-03-2019 3:49pm

There has to be a middle ground here. That little apartment made me feel claustrophobic just looking at it.

Bluefoam · 07-03-2019 4:01pm

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

We are at the forefront of this model since the crash with vulture funds, REITS,and hedge funds the preferred landlords with guaranteed secure long term yields. We seem to be a model for the movement towards minimum income and our financial model lends itself to this experiment.

No, we are at the tail end... it's an established model throughout the rest of the world. USA, Middle East, Asia inc. China, Europe. Ireland was too small with prices too high for the funds to take interest, but when the prices fell sygnificantly they were quick to realise the value against potential growth.

In Dubai, I was delighted to get away from my landlord to a property that was managed by a huge firm... They ran the place superbly, rent went up and down based on market rates, they dealt with deposits and maintenance in a very straight forward and open manner... When I was renting from individual landlords they were contantly trying to rip you off, taking deposits, raising rent against the rules, additional charges, estate agent fees yearly, illegal evictions...

pyramuid man · 07-03-2019 5:01pm

In relation to someone earlier saying that something may change if SF got into power, all I can say is this. If you think things are bad with property prices and interest rates bring charged by banks at the moment, look at what it could be.

Sinn Feins policies will effectively stop mortgage lending and drastically increase interest rates for people who do have a mortgage. Their anti eviction and socialist policies will make it impossible for banks to take action against those who can but won't pay their mortgages and landlords will not be able to evict tenants under any circumstances from what I can see.

In this respect they will make it impossible for banks to lend money as there will be no recourse for them to take action against defaulters. Purple who are in rental accommodation can't be removed so the rental market will stay full with nowhere for people to move on to.

This doesn't appeal to me personally.

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 5:28pm

JJJackal wrote: »

98
You are comparing 2013 (the worst recession and housing crisis in memory) to today. Average Prices in 2013 were the same as in 2003 according to the cso website. Another way to look at house prices is to say that this type of house has increased from 100k (we dont know what price it was sold for?) in 2003 to 215k today (he may not get that)- just over a doubling of price in 16 years is probably ok - somewhere between 4-5% increase per year.

Really Irish Housing is such a dysfunctional market!

The low was 2012 and this brought Dublin prices back to 2002 but your points are correct otherwise

Does anyone know how low the iseq got, the answer is 1992 levels and it dropped 80% in two years, gives you an idea how bad things were

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 5:33pm

pyramuid man wrote: »

In relation to someone earlier saying that something may change if SF got into power, all I can say is this. If you think things are bad with property prices and interest rates bring charged by banks at the moment, look at what it could be.

Sinn Feins policies will effectively stop mortgage lending and drastically increase interest rates for people who do have a mortgage. Their anti eviction and socialist policies will make it impossible for banks to take action against those who can but won't pay their mortgages and landlords will not be able to evict tenants under any circumstances from what I can see.

In this respect they will make it impossible for banks to lend money as there will be no recourse for them to take action against defaulters. Purple who are in rental accommodation can't be removed so the rental market will stay full with nowhere for people to move on to.

This doesn't appeal to me personally.

We have a broken housing sector where rents are at an all time record high, tenants have no security, house prices are not in any way affordable, interest rates are the highest across Europe, we're not building enough private or public housing and there's no hope for the market to meet demand, traditional banks have too much of the market share in mortgages. The time for a brand new set of housing policies is now, and none of what you're charging Sinn Féin's policy on housing with is correct.

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 5:42pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The low was 2012 and this brought Dublin prices back to 2002 but your points are correct otherwise

Does anyone know how low the iseq got, the answer is 1992 levels and it dropped 80% in two years, gives you an idea how bad things were

2012 is just a bad time point to compare how expensive houses are now

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 5:44pm

Sheeps wrote: »

We have a broken housing sector where rents are at an all time record high, tenants have no security, house prices are not in any way affordable, interest rates are the highest across Europe, we're not building enough private or public housing and there's no hope for the market to meet demand, traditional banks have too much of the market share in mortgages. The time for a brand new set of housing policies is now, and none of what you're charging Sinn Féin's policy on housing with is correct.

Policies need to be implemented that protect the tenant, the landlords and the banks.

Favouring one over the other leads to dysfunction.

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 5:45pm

JJJackal wrote: »

Policies need to be implemented that protect the tenant, the landlords and the banks.

Favouring one over the other leads to dysfunction.

That's the way it is now. Things are so heavily stacked in favor of landlords and the banks.

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 5:49pm

Sheeps wrote: »

That's the way it is now. Things are so heavily stacked in favor of landlords and the banks.

In my opinion, the current policies benefit no one and are stacked against all 3 of these parties

Tenants: no security of tenure, can be evicted easily, low supply

Landlords: can have 2 identical properties in one estate - rent on one 900/month; rent on the other 1600/month. Costs 1000s to evict an unruly or nonpaying tenant

Banks: very difficult to repossess houses of people who have not paid their mortgages in years thus driving up interest rates for tenants who are renting and thus makes buying a home more unaffordable

Am I wrong?

Fol20 · 07-03-2019 5:51pm

Sheeps wrote: »

That's the way it is now. Things are so heavily stacked in favor of landlords and the banks.

Please please do your research before you put out a comment like that and back that up with facts.

Bluefoam · 07-03-2019 5:51pm

Bad news... property is expensive...

People want property, therefore there is a demand. Some people have more money than others, that means they can afford to spend more. This is a fundamental. Some people cannot afford the property they want, it's not great but its a fact... other people have more money and can get the property you want. Someone with more money than them can get an even better property. This can be helped by increasing supply, but that is difficult & the world economy is making that more difficult. Asset infation is the biggest limiting factor... Basically, building material costs are very high & labour is very difficult to source (also high costs). As a society, we refuse to use lower quality cheaper material & refuse to use cheap labour (i agree fully with this)... So for all those screaming about the lack of development etc... what is your solution? It's up to you to find the answer & make it happen. Stop making it someone elses problem.

One clear way to be able to afford a property you want is to go out and earn more money... You live in a state with free education... It's there for the taking.

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 5:53pm

JJJackal wrote: »

In my opinion, the current policies benefit no one and are stacked against all 3 of these parties

Tenants: no security of tenure, can be evicted easily, low supply

Landlords: can have 2 identical properties in one estate - rent on one 900/month; rent on the other 1600/month. Costs 1000s to evict an unruly or nonpaying tenant

Banks: very difficult to repossess houses of people who have not paid their mortgages in years thus driving up interest rates for tenants who are renting and thus makes buying a home more unaffordable

Am I wrong?

Tenants have robust security of tenure and are extremely difficult to evict, much more difficult than in most European countries

That myth seems to be ingrained such is the level of anti landlord media coverage

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 5:55pm

JJJackal wrote: »

2012 is just a bad time point to compare how expensive houses are now

Oh agreed, I was just being pedantic in pointing out that 2012 was the bottom in Dublin

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 5:55pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Tenants have robust security of tenure and are extremely difficult to evict, much more difficult than in most European countries

That myth seems to be ingrained such is the level of anti landlord media coverage

My point is current policies benefit no one.

Compared to some European countries eg Belgium tenants have no security of tenure.

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 5:56pm

Sheeps wrote: »

That's the way it is now. Things are so heavily stacked in favor of landlords and the banks.

BS

pyramuid man · 07-03-2019 5:56pm

Sheeps wrote: »

We have a broken housing sector where rents are at an all time record high, tenants have no security, house prices are not in any way affordable, interest rates are the highest across Europe, we're not building enough private or public housing and there's no hope for the market to meet demand, traditional banks have too much of the market share in mortgages. The time for a brand new set of housing policies is now, and none of what you're charging Sinn Féin's policy on housing with is correct.

What is incorrect about it exactly?

If a bank cannot repossess a property when a person defaults, who do you think pays for that? Mortgage holders do with increased rates.

When tenants cant be evicted when they stop paying rent, where is the supply of new rental properties going to come from?

And finally, if a builder can't make money from developing houses and selling them, who is going to build the new houses?

Like it or not, the "broken housing sector" won't get any better. Irish mortgage holders and tenants are among the best protected in the world and this is contributing to the problems we are seeing now. I agree that there should be protections for vulnerable people and there should be a fair process but the odds are stacked completely against the banks and landlords and everyone else is suffering for it. Sinn fein would only increase the so called protections that are crippling the market.

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 5:57pm

JJJackal wrote: »

My point is current policies benefit no one.

Compared to some European countries eg Belgium tenants have no security of tenure.

You said tenants can be evicted easily, that is profoundly untrue

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 5:59pm

pyramuid man wrote: »

What is incorrect about it exactly?

If a bank cannot repossess a property when a person defaults, who do you think pays for that? Mortgage holders do with increased rates.

When tenants cant be evicted when they so paying rent, where is the supply of new rental properties going to come from?

And finally, if a builder can't make money from developing houses and selling them, who is going to build the new houses?

Like it or not, the "broken housing sector" won't get any better. Irish mortgage holders and tenants are among the best protected in the world and this is contributing to the problems we are seeing now. I agree that there should be protections for vulnerable people and there should be a fair process but the odds are stacked completely against the banks and landlords and everyone else is suffering for it. Sinn fein would only increase the so called protections that are crippling the market.

You only have to look at the dismal performance of irish Bank shares this past five years to see how little joy they are having despite the high interest rates, banking in Ireland sucks

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 6:01pm

JJJackal wrote: »

In my opinion, the current policies benefit no one and are stacked against all 3 of these parties

Tenants: no security of tenure, can be evicted easily, low supply

Landlords: can have 2 identical properties in one estate - rent on one 900/month; rent on the other 1600/month. Costs 1000s to evict an unruly or nonpaying tenant

Banks: very difficult to repossess houses of people who have not paid their mortgages in years thus driving up interest rates for tenants who are renting and thus makes buying a home more unaffordable

Am I wrong?

There are issues for all three legs of the stool, but the repercussions for the tenant are by far the greatest. The landlord can sell the property and move on, the banks pass on the expense on somewhere else, but the tenant ends up having to move or worst case ends up presenting as homeless.

I'm not saying they're not all serious issues, but there are ways of addressing them all, and again the only way of doing so is a change of policy. None of Sinn Féin's policies favor one over the other.

On banks, their policy is to stop the bank selling the loss to vulture funds, which is a consumer protection recommendation from the central bank, now being proposed as legislation. Furthermore this is supported by Fianna Fáil. This forces the bank to repossess the home instead of cooking their books, and with models like the mortgage-to-rent scheme that allow people where the banks have foreclosed on their home to continue to stay in the home renting. The bank retains the asset, the person remains in the home, and continues to generate income on the loan, reducing the bad debt. The house can eventually be sold by the bank.

Regarding Landlords and Tenants, all Sinn Féin want to do seems to be provide more security of tenure for tenants which is fair given that landlords have received in tax write offs. Furthermore they want to execute a massive policy of building public and affordable housing. This will reduce demand on the rental sector and will eventually result in RPZ's being removed. Unless supply is met and prices start to fall, the RPZ's are here to stay.

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 6:02pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

You said tenants can be evicted easily, that is profoundly untrue

You are correct - the point I meant to make is, for reasonable tenants (who leave when given notice to leave; not all tenants are like that), they can be given any reason eg family moving in, selling, renovations... and thus they move out. Sometimes these reasons are not true. V easy to terminate tenancy in this way.

If you could rent a property for 10 years and know you would be there in 10 years time with rent rising in line with inflation I reckon alot of people would not want to buy houses. This as far as I am aware is not the case in Ireland. This is not the Landlords fault.

sweetie · 07-03-2019 6:02pm

Sheeps wrote: »

That's the way it is now. Things are so heavily stacked in favor of landlords and the banks.

tenants can overhold and hang on for months and years rent free. How is that in favour of the landlords?

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 6:03pm

sweetie wrote: »

tenants can overhold and hang on for months and years rent free. How is that in favour of the landlords?

That's simply not true. If you miss even one months rent, you can be evicted.

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 6:09pm

Sheeps wrote: »

There are issues for all three legs of the stool, but the repercussions for the tenant are by far the greatest. The landlord can sell the property and move on, the banks pass on the expense on somewhere else, but the tenant ends up having to move or worst case ends up presenting as homeless.

I'm not saying they're not all serious issues, but for there are ways of addressing them all, and again the only way of doing so is a change of policy. None of Sinn Féin's policies favor one over the other.

On banks, their policy for Sinn Féin is to stop the bank selling the loss to vulture funds, which is a recommendation from the central bank, not being proposed as legislation. This forces the bank to repossess the home instead of cooking their books, and with models like the mortgage-to-rent scheme that allow people where the banks have foreclosed on their home to continue to stay in the home renting. The bank retains the asset, the person remains in the home, and continues to generate income on the loan, reducing the bad debt. The house can eventually be sold by the bank.

Regarding Landlords and Tenants, all Sinn Féin want to do seems to be provide more security of tenure for tenants which is fair given that landlords have received in tax write offs. Furthermore they want to execute a massive policy of building public and affordable housing. This will reduce demand on the rental sector and will eventually result in RPZ's being removed. Unless supply is met and prices start to fall, the RPZ's are here to stay.

How can the landlord sell if he cant evict the tenant? SF want the LL to compensate the tenant if evicted for sale. SF policies favour the tenant imo.

The loans are sold to vulture funds because Irish banks cannot or will not repossess property by and large. As the Irish tax payers has shares in a number of banks, the irish tax payer is funding the non performing loans. Not all mortgage holders will engage. Banks are businesses too (something to bear in mind). Obviously homelessness is horrific and I have empathy for anyone facing homelessness. When sold to vulture funds the same terms and conditions that were in place at the time you took out the mortgage are still in place.

Landlords have received tax write offs - please discuss. Who is going to fund the massive policy of house building? I suspect SF wont remove RPZs either way - but lets wait and see on that one

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 6:10pm

Sheeps wrote: »

That's simply not true. If you miss even one months rent, you can be evicted.

And if the tenant decides not to move and not to pay what happens?

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 6:18pm

JJJackal wrote: »

How can the landlord sell if he cant evict the tenant? SF want the LL to compensate the tenant if evicted for sale. SF policies favour the tenant imo.

The loans are sold to vulture funds because Irish banks cannot or will not repossess property by and large. As the Irish tax payers has shares in a number of banks, the irish tax payer is funding the non performing loans. Not all mortgage holders will engage. Banks are businesses too (something to bear in mind). Obviously homelessness is horrific and I have empathy for anyone facing homelessness. When sold to vulture funds the same terms and conditions that were in place at the time you took out the mortgage are still in place.

Landlords have received tax write offs - please discuss. Who is going to fund the massive policy of house building? I suspect SF wont remove RPZs either way - but lets wait and see on that one

The Tyrrelstown amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act allows you to evict in the case where a tenancy would cause undue hardship to the seller.

Loans can still be sold off to vulture funds with Sinn Féin's policy should the consumer agree. All this forces the bank to do is find someone who's not just intent on evicting the mortgage holder, and is willing to renegotiation. Failing that the bank can simply renegotiate the terms, or in the event of where a mortgage holder is not cooperating, can take them to court and have the home repossessed.

Building public housing is an investment, and will pay for itself by simply reducing the growing reliance on the failure that is the HAP scheme. They're also to scrap people being able to purchase the public houses they live in at huge discounts, recognizing that this Thatcherite policy is completely ridiculous. Affordable houses should pay for themselves.

Change is needed. It might seem radical, but we've been doing the same thing for decades and it's always resulted in the same outcome. We need to be willing to try an alternative. As a traditional FG voter, Sinn Féin seemes like a radical step, but realistically it's just center left wing economic policy. They're not trying to build the next Soviet Union.

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 6:20pm

JJJackal wrote: »

And if the tenant decides not to move and not to pay what happens?

Assuming your eviction was legal, and you've exhausted your options with the RTB the next stage would be to obtain a court order to have the tenant evicted. How is this not acceptable in the event of this extremely rare scenario?

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 6:22pm

Sheeps wrote: »

Assuming your eviction was legal, and you've exhausted your options with the RTB the next stage would be to obtain a court order to have the tenant evicted. How is this not acceptable in the event of this extremely rare scenario?

How long will that take? How much will that cost? And who will pay for it?

Fol20 · 07-03-2019 6:24pm

Sheeps wrote: »

There are issues for all three legs of the stool, but the repercussions for the tenant are by far the greatest. The landlord can sell the property and move on, the banks pass on the expense on somewhere else, but the tenant ends up having to move or worst case ends up presenting as homeless.

I'm not saying they're not all serious issues, but there are ways of addressing them all, and again the only way of doing so is a change of policy. None of Sinn Féin's policies favor one over the other.

On banks, their policy is to stop the bank selling the loss to vulture funds, which is a consumer protection recommendation from the central bank, now being proposed as legislation. Furthermore this is supported by Fianna Fáil. This forces the bank to repossess the home instead of cooking their books, and with models like the mortgage-to-rent scheme that allow people where the banks have foreclosed on their home to continue to stay in the home renting. The bank retains the asset, the person remains in the home, and continues to generate income on the loan, reducing the bad debt. The house can eventually be sold by the bank.

Regarding Landlords and Tenants, all Sinn Féin want to do seems to be provide more security of tenure for tenants which is fair given that landlords have received in tax write offs. Furthermore they want to execute a massive policy of building public and affordable housing. This will reduce demand on the rental sector and will eventually result in RPZ's being removed. Unless supply is met and prices start to fall, the RPZ's are here to stay.

Completely lost faith in your statement when you said sf policys dont favour one over the other. Your entire opinion is severely one sided. Their fluff pieces appears like they favour the tenant but in the end it will hurt the tenants along with everyone else. Please point out how they are neutral as everything you posted suggests nothing to favour banks or ll.

You mentioned they want to excute mass large scale policy for building houses. Where will they get this money. I want to buy a ferrari but i cant afford it.

Providing more security for tenants is fair -how? Take a look at the past 5 years of legislation, what is fair about all the anti ll stuff that has come out with nothing in return. The uninttended consequences of this is we are now seeing a declining supply of rentals at a time when rents are at their highest. Who looses from this, you guessed it tenants. You say its a change of policy. I see it as more of the same, making the market more dysfunctional which will hurt all alike.

Even with banks. If a bank reposses a house. It should be their choice for whom they let it to. The responsibility of not paying your debt should never be forced upon ll, banks or other tenants that are paying for their debt. It should only be bourne on the person that is doing what they signed up for. Tenants that dont pay rent should be kicked out. Ll and tenants that dont pay their mortgage should be out. This would make life much better for all as rates would be cheaper so better for tenants. Risk and legal costs for babks would be less. Ll risk would also decline.

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 6:27pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Completely lost faith in your statement when you said sf policys dont favour one over the other. Your entire opinion is severely one sided. Their fluff pieces appears like they favour the tenant but in the end it will hurt the tenants along with everyone else. Please point out how they are neutral as everything you posted suggests nothing to favour banks or ll.

You mentioned they want to excute mass large scale policy for building houses. Where will they get this money. I want to buy a ferrari but i cant afford it.

Providing more security for tenants is fair -how? Take a look at the past 5 years of legislation, what is fair about all the anti ll stuff that has come out with nothing in return. The uninttended consequences of this is we are now seeing a declining supply of rentals at a time when rents are at their highest. Who looses from this, you guessed it tenants. You say its a change of policy. I see it as more of the same, making the market more dysfunctional which will hurt all alike.

Even with banks. If a bank reposses a house. It should be their choice for whom they let it to. The responsibility of not paying your debt should never be forced upon ll, banks or other tenants that are paying for their debt. It should only be bourne on the person that is doing what they signed up for. Tenants that dont pay rent should be kicked out. Ll and tenants that dont pay their mortgage should be out. This would make life much better for all as rates would be cheaper so better for tenants. Risk and legal costs for babks would be less. Ll risk would also decline.

If the system is already stacked in favor of the banks, acting in favor of a the tenant only equalizes things. Were talking about a basic level of consumer protection here, against institutions making massive massive un-taxed profits on unfair terms. You're making it sound like the banks are victims of consumer protection.

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 6:28pm

Sheeps wrote: »

The Tyrrelstown amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act allows you to evict in the case where a tenancy would cause undue hardship to the seller.

This takes time, costs money, leads to lost revenue and potential damage to property (and who pays to fix that?) - the landlord - you cant write lost revenue off against tax (lol i suppose you can as your not getting any revenue)

Sheeps wrote: »

Loans can still be sold off to vulture funds with Sinn Féin's policy should the consumer agree. All this forces the bank to do is find someone who's not just intent on evicting the mortgage holder, and is willing to renegotiation. Failing that the bank can simply renegotiate the terms, or in the event of where a mortgage holder is not cooperating, can take them to court and have the home repossessed.

Why would the consumer agree? I wouldn't. How long does it take to get a house repossessed? Who pays for that? Future borrowers with increased rates

Sheeps wrote: »

Building public housing is an investment, and will pay for itself by simply reducing the growing reliance on the failure that is the HAP scheme. They're also to scrap people being able to purchase the public houses they live in at huge discounts, recognizing that this Thatcherite policy is completely ridiculous. Affordable houses should pay for themselves.

The HAP scheme costs 700 million and other government rent schems ( or something like that). Lets break that down 350 million goes straight back to the government. The other 350 million goes to pay back mortgages often in state owned banks with the government getting a dividend. Thus improving the banks balance sheet making them more suitable for future sale. Seems like an alright initiative

Sheeps wrote: »

Radical change is needed.

Agreed

Fol20 · 07-03-2019 6:28pm

Sheeps wrote: »

That's simply not true. If you miss even one months rent, you can be evicted.

In theory yes. In practicality no.

If tenants fail to pay rent, eviction proceeding can start after circa a month. It doesnt mean they are out of the house though and the ll still has to obey their financial and legal requirements with a non paying tenant. Depending on how awkward a tenant is. Even after the courts have told them to vacate after several months of legal proceedings. They can continue to ignore them and stay in the property

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 6:30pm

Sheeps wrote: »

If the system is already stacked in favor of the banks, acting in favor of a the tenant only equalizes things. Were talking about a basic level of consumer protection here, against institutions making massive massive un-taxed profits on unfair terms. You're making it sound like the banks are victims of consumer protection.

Do you think banks shouldn't be able to repossess houses? That they should negotiate massive discounts on large mortgages even if it would be more profitable to sell the property?

seasidedub · 07-03-2019 6:35pm

Reading back on this thread seeing predictions is amusing..... market will dive bomb, don't buy etc.

A house I've been (unsuccessfully) bidding on has gone sale agreed for 200k more then it was sold for as a new build in 2017......

Even if you have to pay CGT, tidy profit for less than 24 months. Of course only really helps if you're downsizing or moving to a cheaper area as otherwise you need the same or more to buy a similar property

Fol20 · 07-03-2019 6:35pm

Sheeps wrote: »

If the system is already stacked in favor of the banks, acting in favor of a the tenant only equalizes things. Were talking about a basic level of consumer protection here, against institutions making massive massive un-taxed profits on unfair terms. You're making it sound like the banks are victims of consumer protection.

Take a look at what i said again. I didnt say it was stacked in favour of banks. I think a lot of mob mentality legislation is out that appears to favour tenants but hurts everyone. Every piece of legislation that comes in will impact others which will have consequences. Please tell me why we have the highest mortgage rates in EU?

What basic level of consumer protection do you want to bring in? If it is about giving tenants more rights, then its more of the same of what they have beening doing and that clearly isnt working.if supply is declining, you want to entice more into the market, not scare them away and also make existing ll go as well.

All businesses aim to make profit. I dont see a problem with that. The company you work for wouldnt employ you if they are not making a profit so why should banks be no different

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 6:38pm

seasidedub wrote: »

Reading back on this thread seeing predictions is amusing..... market will dive bomb, don't buy etc.

A house I've been (unsuccessfully) bidding on has gone sale agreed for 200k more then it was sold for as a new build in 2017......

Even if you have to pay CGT, tidy profit for less than 24 months. Of course only really helps if you're downsizing or moving to a cheaper area as otherwise you need the same or more to buy a similar property

Where was this?

Fol20 · 07-03-2019 6:40pm

Selling a property with tenants in situ does cause undo hardship. The seller will be forced to sell the property for less that they could get if it was vacant. How do you not see that? Are you trolling?

How about im your boss. You could achieve a salary of 60k but im telling you im only going to give you 50k and you have no choice but to bend over and accept it. Is that fair? Thats basically what your saying should happen.

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 6:45pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Take a look at what i said again. I didnt say it was stacked in favour of banks. I think a lot of mob mentality legislation is out that appears to favour tenants but hurts everyone. Every piece of legislation that comes in will impact others which will have consequences. Please tell me why we have the highest mortgage rates in EU?

What basic level of consumer protection do you want to bring in? If it is about giving tenants more rights, then its more of the same of what they have beening doing and that clearly isnt working.if supply is declining, you want to entice more into the market, not scare them away and also make existing ll go as well.

All businesses aim to make profit. I dont see a problem with that. The company you work for wouldnt employ you if they are not making a profit so why should banks be no different

I said it was stacked in favor of banks. The basic levels of consumer protection I'm in favor of is banks having to obtain permission from the mortgage holder in order to sell their mortgage to a third party. In many cases the bank that is being sold the debt, will be willing to restructure, but often in others, the consumer will end up having no options. That's a key piece of consumer protection legislation that will make meaningful difference to mortgage holders in distress trying to pay back their mortgages in arrears, whilst also forcing the banks to repossess property from those who don't engage and retain the security, rather than being forced in to discounting the debt to get it off their books so they can look good.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be able to make a profit. I am arguing however that consumer rights and consumer protection is an important part of the profit making process.

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 6:47pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Selling a property with tenants in situ does cause undo hardship. The seller will be forced to sell the property for less that they could get if it was vacant. How do you not see that? Are you trolling?

How about im your boss. You could achieve a salary of 60k but im telling you im only going to give you 50k and you have no choice but to bend over and accept it. Is that fair? Thats basically what your saying should happen.

I don't think you're reading my posts properly. I said that selling a house with a tenant in situ is undue hardship and is grounds for an eviction under the Tyrrelstown amendment in response to someone saying they couldn't sell a house with tenants in it. That's how I was evicted from my apartment. That's literally what i said.

JJJackal · 07-03-2019 6:48pm

Sheeps wrote: »

I said it was stacked in favor of banks. The basic levels of consumer protection I'm in favor of is banks having to obtain permission from the mortgage holder in order to sell their mortgage to a third party. In many cases the bank that is being sold the debt, will be willing to restructure, but often in others, the consumer will end up having no options. That's a key piece of consumer protection legislation that will make meaningful difference to mortgage holders in distress trying to pay back their mortgages in arrears, whilst also forcing the banks to repossess property from those who don't engage and retain the security, rather than being forced in to discounting the debt to get it off their books so they can look good.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be able to make a profit. I am arguing however that consumer rights and consumer protection is an important part of the profit making process.

You are saying the bank (who own a mortgage) are not allowed to sell it? Surely banks have rights to buy and sell too?

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 6:51pm

JJJackal wrote: »

You are saying the bank (who own a mortgage) are not allowed to sell it? Surely banks have rights to buy and sell too?

I'm saying that this recommendation by the central bank, was put in to legislation and passed in the Dáil and I agree with it.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2019/2/eng/initiated/b0219d.pdf

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 6:57pm

Sheeps wrote: »

That's simply not true. If you miss even one months rent, you can be evicted.

The more pertinent point is you can withhold rent for two years if you are brazen enough and when eviction eventually happens, face no consequence, its effectively legalised theft

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 7:00pm

Sheeps wrote: »

Assuming your eviction was legal, and you've exhausted your options with the RTB the next stage would be to obtain a court order to have the tenant evicted. How is this not acceptable in the event of this extremely rare scenario?

Replace "extremely rare" with very common

Rogue tenants are far more common than rogue landlords for the simple reason they have immunity

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 7:00pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The more pertinent point is you can withhold rent for two years if you are brazen enough and when eviction eventually happens, face no consequence, its effectively legalised theft

I'd be in favour of protecting landlords against this behavior, but not at the cost of keeping the status quo with regards to tenants rights.

Subutai · 07-03-2019 7:02pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The more pertinent point is you can withhold rent for two years if you are brazen enough and when eviction eventually happens, face no consequence, its effectively legalised theft

This is true only for indigent tenants. They are a tiny minority of renters. It's the same problem faced by all service providers who are paid after providing the service.

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 7:05pm

Sheeps wrote: »

I'd be in favour of protecting landlords against this behavior, but not at the cost of keeping the status quo with regards to tenants rights.

Talk about speaking outside of both sides of your mouth while eating cake!

Mad_maxx · 07-03-2019 7:07pm

Subutai wrote: »

This is true only for indigent tenants. They are a tiny minority of renters. It's the same problem faced by all service providers who are paid after providing the service.

Name another service provider who is faced with this

Pussyhands · 07-03-2019 7:11pm

Anything about the property market in 2019 though?

Sheeps · 07-03-2019 7:12pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Talk about speaking outside of both sides of your mouth while eating cake!

Are you assuming I'm just anti landlord because I'm in favor of fixing the massive imbalance in the system towards tenants?

Subutai · 07-03-2019 7:14pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Name another service provider who is faced with this

Literally anyone who provides a service on credit. Chasing up clients for payment is a constant issue for legal professionals, for instance. Same for tradespeople and subcontractors. Debt collectors are a big business, and it's not because of landlords.

Plenty of small businesses went under during the recession precisely because those they were providing services to went bust. I'd a friend who owned a fruit and veg supplier and went under after two of his big contracts (hotels) closed in the same year.

Getting money owed from someone with no assets or income is impossible. That's why I wouldn't rent to someone without seeing a healthy bank balance and a job with a steady income. No problem recovering from such a person.

Property Market 2019

Comments