Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

1…4849515354…112

Comments

  • #1502
    Ozark707
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    Mr Hindley wrote: »
    Thanks for this - it hadn't even occurred to me to go straight to the REITs themselves, and you're right, as someone used to owning their own home, unfurnished suits me much better, otherwise I'm paying for storage for my furniture as well. Looking on Daft, unfurnished rentals seemed in surprisingly short supply. I'll have a poke around on the IRES site - I notice they don't seem to publish prices on the website, just 'enquire within'!

    Best of luck and if it is 'enquire within' probably indicates you might be able to secure a rent free period maybe. They might be very reluctant to reduce the headline rent as others in the complex would want similar when word of it spread.

    There seems to be a number of pages on Daft of these places. I just thought it was a few of them in the city centre but there are more further out.


  • #1503
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    Have you rang up any of the agents to see how negotiable they are. I am noticing that places priced keenly are going but ones looking for 2019 prices are not. I have heard of a number of people securing more than 10% off asking

    I am aware of a few landlords not budging on rent because "thats the market price".
    However after a month being without tenants they realise that they are better off with a tenant in paying 85% of their "market price" than having an empty apartment and getting 0% of the "market price"


  • #1504
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Edgware wrote: »
    I am aware of a few landlords not budging on rent because "thats the market price".
    However after a month being without tenants they realise that they are better off with a tenant in paying 85% of their "market price" than having an empty apartment and getting 0% of the "market price"

    I'm personally aware of several landlords who are keeping units vacant for the time being- regardless of what the rent is- with the probable intention of selling if possible.


  • #1505
    Smouse156
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭Smouse156


    Edgware wrote: »
    I am aware of a few landlords not budging on rent because "thats the market price".
    However after a month being without tenants they realise that they are better off with a tenant in paying 85% of their "market price" than having an empty apartment and getting 0% of the "market price"

    They clearly don’t understand what “market price” means. I suppose when you’ve had it your own way for 6 years straight you might become a little delusional


  • #1506
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    I'm personally aware of several landlords who are keeping units vacant for the time being- regardless of what the rent is- with the probable intention of selling if possible.

    Certainly that is happening too. Landlords are walking away once they can get a good price.
    They are fed up with PRTBs failure to deal promptly with bad tenants etc


  • Advertisement
  • #1507
    Ozark707
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    I'm personally aware of several landlords who are keeping units vacant for the time being- regardless of what the rent is- with the probable intention of selling if possible.

    But we are being told the selling market is strong now so why not offload now?


  • #1508
    Mr Hindley
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Mr Hindley


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    But we are being told the selling market is strong now so why not offload now?

    I agree, if you're going to shift a property, I would do it ASAP. But maybe not all of them realise it - they're just assuming that house prices will be weak, because that's what everyone expected to happen by now. When actually, all the potential sellers holding back for fear of prices being low is what is actually keeping sale prices high..!


  • #1509
    Ozark707
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    Mr Hindley wrote: »
    I agree, if you're going to shift a property, I would do it ASAP. But maybe not all of them realise it - they're just assuming that house prices will be weak, because that's what everyone expected to happen by now. When actually, all the potential sellers holding back for fear of prices being low is what is actually keeping sale prices high..!

    Hard to fathom the approach unless they are not being forced to get cash in. Keeping places empty would seem to indicate they don't have any immediate cash flow issues.


  • #1510
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    Hard to fathom the approach unless they are not being forced to get cash in. Keeping places empty would seem to indicate they don't have any immediate cash flow issues.

    The vast majority of smaller landlords have 3 or fewer properties (a majority only one) and in many cases these might be inherited properties- which do not have mortgages on them- so while keeping them empty does have an opportunity cost associated with it- cashflow may not necessarily be an issue for a large cohort of them.


  • #1511
    Hubertj
    Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The vast majority of smaller landlords have 3 or fewer properties (a majority only one) and in many cases these might be inherited properties- which do not have mortgages on them- so while keeping them empty does have an opportunity cost associated with it- cashflow may not necessarily be an issue for a large cohort of them.

    I wonder how many have a plan in place - leave it empty for x months to see how things play out? Risks being another lockdown and eviction ban along with RPZ constraints if they reduce rent too much?
    Others posted that mortgage repayments can be significantly less than rent? If so, worse case scenario for a landlord is they take a hit on rent and still have their head above water?


  • Advertisement
  • #1512
    Ozark707
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    Hubertj wrote: »
    I wonder how many have a plan in place - leave it empty for x months to see how things play out? Risks being another lockdown and eviction ban along with RPZ constraints if they reduce rent too much?
    Others posted that mortgage repayments can be significantly less than rent? If so, worse case scenario for a landlord is they take a hit on rent and still have their head above water?

    All valid points I think, my only issue is that if you were a LL and now had a vacancy and planned to sell why you wouldn't try and offload now. Most anecdotes ATM seem to indicate it is a sellers market.


  • #1513
    Ozark707
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The vast majority of smaller landlords have 3 or fewer properties (a majority only one) and in many cases these might be inherited properties- which do not have mortgages on them- so while keeping them empty does have an opportunity cost associated with it- cashflow may not necessarily be an issue for a large cohort of them.

    If only some sort of vacancy tax could be introduced....:rolleyes:


  • #1514
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    If only some sort of vacancy tax could be introduced....:rolleyes:

    Everyone with a holiday home would be up in arms.


  • #1515
    Ozark707
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Everyone with a holiday home would be up in arms.

    True, but I am guessing if you have the money for a holiday home you can stump up a few shillings for this.


  • #1516
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Everyone with a holiday home would be up in arms.

    They should be given to the homeless Joe


  • #1517
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Everyone with a holiday home would be up in arms.

    Boohoo


  • #1518
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,153 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    The rent cap is now operating to keep property off the market, thus reducing supply. It is doing the opposite of what was intended initially. It demonstrates the other stupidity of introducing the rent cap in the first place. If it wasn't for the rent cap rents would be falling naturally, fewer landlords would have sold out and rents overall would be lower for tenants. There would be fewer homeless with consequent savings for the local authorities.


  • #1519
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The rent cap is now operating to keep property off the market, thus reducing supply. It is doing the opposite of what was intended initially. It demonstrates the other stupidity of introducing the rent cap in the first place. If it wasn't for the rent cap rents would be falling naturally, fewer landlords would have sold out and rents overall would be lower for tenants. There would be fewer homeless with consequent savings for the local authorities.

    Try selling that to the media though- its a toxic suggestion that they simply would not consider on purely ideological grounds.


  • #1520
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Try selling that to the media though- its a toxic suggestion that they simply would not consider on purely ideological grounds.
    This is a great little country where we pander to the distracted because of the unwillingness to defend logic


  • #1521
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    rightmove wrote: »
    This is a great little country where we pander to the distracted because of the unwillingness to defend logic

    I agree- however, whatever way you'd like to put it, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

    There simply is no way to reason with them- the whole scenario is outside of their playbook- and is in their minds, not just suspect- but to be actively derided and attacked.

    It is impossible to try to reason with certain mindsets.


  • Advertisement
  • #1522
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The vast majority of smaller landlords have 3 or fewer properties (a majority only one) and in many cases these might be inherited properties- which do not have mortgages on them- so while keeping them empty does have an opportunity cost associated with it- cashflow may not necessarily be an issue for a large cohort of them.


    Myself and some family members have been buying, renovating and selling property together for some years now. My brother and Dad are in together on one since last November (I didnt as I was thinking of buying one to keep this year).
    They finished the work on it in Feb and were putting it on the market in March when Covid put a spanner in everything. They decided to leave it until next year to sell. They would have rented it out until they decided to sell it but they might never get it back, so its sitting there empty atm.


    All sorts of reasons people might have an empty property, but only one reason they leave it empty - Punishing regulations.


  • #1523
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,153 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    All sorts of reasons people might have an empty property, but only one reason they leave it empty - Punishing regulations.

    Covexit is going to brutally expose the stupidity of it. If the rent cap was lifted now, relatively few landlords would increase rents. More landlords would be inclined to put property on the market at a lower rent than previously, however the manner in which the previous rent cap froze existing rents will make many wary of a similar event occurring in the future.


  • #1524
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Covexit is going to brutally expose the stupidity of it. If the rent cap was lifted now, relatively few landlords would increase rents. More landlords would be inclined to put property on the market at a lower rent than previously, however the manner in which the previous rent cap froze existing rents will make many wary of a similar event occurring in the future.


    The way the punished the good landlords who had lower rent wont be forgotten.
    I imagine every landlord will remember that you get punished for being one of the good guys.


  • #1525
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    The way the punished the good landlords who had lower rent wont be forgotten.
    I imagine every landlord will remember that you get punished for being one of the good guys.

    There are certain thresholds which must be passed before rents are subject to the caps. If there were as many good landlords as you suggest, then there wouldn't be a need for a rent cap in the first place.

    Landlords have literally nobody but their peers to blame for this.


  • #1526
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    There are certain thresholds which must be passed before rents are subject to the caps. If there were as many good landlords as you suggest, then there wouldn't be a need for a rent cap in the first place.

    Landlords have literally nobody but their peers to blame for this.

    The greedy/"In the know"/charlatan LL or whatever you want to call them had their rents at market value when the caps came in. :eek:The only ppl to suffer were the LLs (and tenants living with the knowledge that next door are locked in on rent way below what they are paying) who were well below market. Infact I only know ppl with 1 or 2 properties and not one of them we even within 10% of market rate so that is alot of ppl. A friend who I advised to get out since he re-rented below market last year is now selling. Surely its not good when all the decent LL's are gone!!


  • #1527
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    rightmove wrote: »
    The greedy/"In the know"/charlatan LL or whatever you want to call them had their rents at market value when the caps came in. :eek:The only ppl to suffer were the LLs (and tenants living with the knowledge that next door are locked in on rent way below what they are paying) who were well below market. Infact I only know ppl with 1 or 2 properties and not one of them we even within 10% of market rate so that is alot of ppl. A friend who I advised to get out since he re-rented below market last year is now selling. Surely its not good when all the decent LL's are gone!!

    The issue wasn't just market rent though, but also the rate of rent increases. But yes, ultimately this is down to greedy landlords. And the caps were introduced because a lot of landlords were being a little greedy, or a few landlords were being VERY greedy (or a mixture of both). And there's no way, that I know of anyway, where you can target just those landlords. At least not without creating a further inflationary effect amongst the rest of the market.


  • #1528
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭rightmove


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The issue wasn't just market rent though, but also the rate of rent increases. But yes, ultimately this is down to greedy landlords. And the caps were introduced because a lot of landlords were being a little greedy, or a few landlords were being VERY greedy (or a mixture of both). And there's no way, that I know of anyway, where you can target just those landlords. At least not without creating a further inflationary effect amongst the rest of the market.

    yes and the greediest LL could now increase it by 4%. They were a stupid measure and as a tenant and a LL simultaneously I was speaking from a position of knowledge where I had a vested interest in protecting tenants and LL's as I was both. I am now neither.


  • #1529
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    rightmove wrote: »
    yes and the greediest LL could now increase it by 4%. They were a stupid measure and as a tenant and a LL simultaneously I was speaking from a position of knowledge where I had a vested interest in protecting tenants and LL's as I was both. I am now neither.

    Before the cap, the greediest LL was increasing it by well above 7%, so in the face of that I'd call 4% a win.

    If you have a better solution, that could address the core issues in a more targeted fashion, I'm all ears.


  • #1530
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 13,982 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Before the cap, the greediest LL was increasing it by well above 7%, so in the face of that I'd call 4% a win.

    If you have a better solution, that could address the core issues in a more targeted fashion, I'm all ears.

    In a market where demand is high and supply low, price should go up, renting is a service and should be subject to market forces just like any other service. But when demand is low and supply is high, prices should fall accordingly, but they aren’t, because the Government interferes in the market. Market forces target markets, let’s hope your ears are open.


  • Advertisement
  • #1531
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Dav010 wrote: »
    In a market where demand is high and supply low, price should go up, renting is a service and should be subject to market forces just like any other service. But when demand is low and supply is high, prices should fall accordingly, but they aren’t, because the Government interferes in the market. Market forces target markets, let’s hope your ears are open.

    Not at a time of record homelessness it shouldn't. There's little point espousing purely economic arguments, if you're not going to recognise the human costs of this approach.


Advertisement