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

Not worth the hassle?

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    You really don't know what you are talking about.

    The couple did not simply make a bad financial decision. If they followed a sensible approach they were then shafted by the government.

    Really, how do you know?
    What properties did they buy? When? How much did they pay for each? How much deposit did they put down for each? What monthly income and expenses did they budget for? How much of a contingency fund did they have? How much of a difference did taxation make? Did they take out insurance?

    You don't know any of that, you just see landlords and you think, "Oh, poor sods, obviously shafted by the government"


  • Options
    #123
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    aluminium wrote: »
    Seems to me looking at the posts above, there is a lot of vitriol towards Landlords. The replies to Landlord responses are more than proportionate. The vitriol also seems to be moving up a notch after every post.

    To the Landlords posting, its an argument your not going to win, begrudgers, malcontents and the envious are aplenty.

    As you say, the core issues with the way the Govt is handling the market is being ignored because its lost in the noise of ranting.

    Thus far this lack of attention has allowed the Govt to get away with it. It also has turned the sector on itself. Which in turn takes the focus and the heat away from the Govt failures.

    Its a masterful PR from the Govt if deliberate and happy circumstance for them if not.


  • Options
    #124
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    RayCun wrote: »
    ...You don't know any of that, you just see landlords and you think, "Oh, poor sods, obviously shafted by the government"

    We know the lack of the ability to evict has cost them massively. On slim margin (perhaps unsustainable) that might be what tipped the business over.

    Have a look at the UK

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_rented_sector
    History of the private rented sector
    For the greater part of the 20th century the private rented sector was in long-term decline. The combination of growth in owner-occupation and the role of the state as a landlord, through local authority housing and latterly the Housing Association movement, contributed to a decline in the private rented sector (PRS).

    Rising prosperity and pro home-ownership Government policies brought owner-occupation to its peak in the 1980s, whilst reducing the private rented sector. During this period owner-occupied dwellings rose by 24% whilst the private rented sector contracted by 10%.

    Growth in the PRS was inhibited by a regulatory regime that discouraged landlords[weasel words]. Regulated rents reduced returns and tenant legislation limited the landlords' right to recover their property from a defaulting tenant.

    Regulatory change
    This long-term decline was arrested by the Housing Act of 1988. This introduced a radical reshaping of landlord - tenant law, and in particular introduced the Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST). This arrangement made the contractual relationship between landlord and tenant clearer and allowed landlords to recover their property relatively easily from a defaulting tenant. (However, the process still often requires recourse to the courts for a Possession Order. The growth was met by tenant demand as improvements in the quality of the stock made renting a viable option....


  • Options
    #125
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    You really don't know what you are talking about.

    The couple did not simply make a bad financial decision.

    Regardless of the government changing policies and making their business unprofitable, in my mind a person borrowing what was probably close to if not over a million euro to invest in anything is a bad decision.


  • Options
    #126
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    beauf wrote: »
    On slim margin (perhaps unsustainable)

    this is it. They obviously borrowed heavily, and bought at the top of the market. They over-extended.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Grumpypants
    Registered Users Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    mikemac2 wrote: »
    Plenty of people their age put their money into bank shares and got wiped out. Nobody cares as it was their decision and that’s the risk you take

    But if you put your money into property and it isn’t going well you can get into a national newspaper.

    Weird I seem to remember a multi-billion euro bailout funded by the tax payer to ensure those banks survived and the share price recovered.

    the same banks that are now recording billions of profit but are not paying any tax as they can write off all their debt against their tax bill !!

    Can a landlord write off their losses against their tax bill because they are in negative equity? Of course they can't


  • Options
    #128
    Diemos
    Registered Users Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭Diemos


    Grumpypants wrote: »
    Weird I seem to remember a multi-billion euro bailout funded by the tax payer to ensure those banks survived and the share price recovered.
    BOI, the bank that held best during the crisis. Is today at 1/3 it's value at boom time.


  • Options
    #129
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Grumpypants wrote: »
    Weird I seem to remember a multi-billion euro bailout funded by the tax payer to ensure those banks survived and the share price recovered.

    the same banks that are now recording billions of profit but are not paying any tax as they can write off all their debt against their tax bill !!

    Can a landlord write off their losses against their tax bill because they are in negative equity? Of course they can't

    Negative equity is different though as the losses aren't yet realized.
    If you sell and have made a capital loss you can offset that against capital gains in order to reduce you tax liability, I think the loss can be carried forward indefinitely also.
    So you can write off loss against a tax bill.


  • Options
    #130
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    RayCun wrote: »
    Really, how do you know?
    What properties did they buy? When? How much did they pay for each? How much deposit did they put down for each? What monthly income and expenses did they budget for? How much of a contingency fund did they have? How much of a difference did taxation make? Did they take out insurance?

    You don't know any of that, you just see landlords and you think, "Oh, poor sods, obviously shafted by the government"

    We know precisely what happened because they tell us and we know what the government did.

    We can assume they didn't have a loss making plan to start with. Taxes and expenses were increased and would wipe out most recent landlords margins (margins people here say shouldnt exist at all).

    The lack of protection from non payment by tenants don't really exist. That loss alone would have made them lose money.

    Nobody could do that with property and make a profit. Even if you take it they made a bad decision to start with the government still shafted them afterwards.


  • Options
    #131
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    RayCun wrote: »
    this is it. They obviously borrowed heavily, and bought at the top of the market. They over-extended.

    Pretty what most people do to buy property, or their own home. Its normal.

    Doesn't always work out though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    beauf wrote: »
    Pretty what most people do to buy property, or their own home. Its normal.

    Doesn't always work out though.

    Their own homes don't have a sudden increase in costs and additional large debit added like happened to these people. Not the same nor normal.


  • Options
    #133
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Grumpypants wrote: »
    Weird I seem to remember a multi-billion euro bailout funded by the tax payer to ensure those banks survived and the share price recovered.

    the same banks that are now recording billions of profit but are not paying any tax as they can write off all their debt against their tax bill !!

    Can a landlord write off their losses against their tax bill because they are in negative equity? Of course they can't

    The share price of the banks hasn't even come close to recovering to what it was during the boom.

    Also, they are not writing off their debt against their tax bill. They are carrying forward their losses from previous years to reduce their tax bill. Every business can do this as can individuals. If you sell your property/shares at a loss you can carry forward that loss to reduce your tax bill when you have a gain.


  • Options
    #134
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Their own homes don't have a sudden increase in costs and additional large debit added like happened to these people. Not the same nor normal.

    Would if you had a large mortgage and both stopped working through illness or such as happened if you read the whole story. The tenant costs only exacerbated the situation. Though if you have uninsured costs like Pyrite or fire regulations or structure failures, maybe an oil tank leak. It could have the similar issue.

    That's the risk of over extending.


  • Options
    #135
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    beauf wrote: »
    Would if you had a large mortgage and both stopped working through illness or such as happened if you read the whole story. The tenant costs only exacerbated the situation. Though if you have uninsured costs like Pyrite or fire regulations or structure failures, maybe an oil tank leak. It could have the similar issue.

    That's the risk of over extending.

    Why are you ignoring the increases from the government?

    Construction faults are claimable and there is a pyrite redress scheme.

    No matter what the government added to their losses and failed to protect them from tenants. Do you disagree with that?


  • Options
    #136
    justaquery
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1 ✭justaquery


    Unfortunately, Lettings is not a level playing field.
    I think the question to be asked is "why are REITS and private Landlords treated differently?"


  • Options
    #137
    Browney7
    Registered Users Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭Browney7


    justaquery wrote: »
    Unfortunately, Lettings is not a level playing field.
    I think the question to be asked is "why are REITS and private Landlords treated differently?"

    Mainly lobbying.

    There is an argument that the providers of housing and the capital up to the boom was mainly individual "investors" who borrowed heavily from Irish banks. When bubble popped, the banks had massive holes in the balance sheets which Joe taxpayer had to fill. There has been a concerted effort to get foreign capital more involved in the provision of housing so that in the event of another pop, foreign investors will eat the losses and not Irish individuals or banks (which then get bailed out by Joe taxpayer).

    There's room for both and a need for both


  • Options
    #138
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    We know precisely what happened because they tell us

    Really?
    So what properties did they buy? When? How much did they pay for each? How much deposit did they put down for each? What monthly income and expenses did they budget for? How much of a contingency fund did they have? How much of a difference did taxation make? Did they take out insurance?


  • Options
    #139
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Why are you ignoring the increases from the government?

    Construction faults are claimable and there is a pyrite redress scheme.

    No matter what the government added to their losses and failed to protect them from tenants. Do you disagree with that?

    It could be argued that tenant arrears and damage are also claimable and insurable. There's also wage protection schemes.

    I didn't ignore I just said on their own they did not cause the situation in this case. You are fighting the wrong argument and picking the wrong example to use for it.

    The govt actions have made it more difficult, and certain a very unattractive business for the smaller Landlord.

    But you have to wonder how they managed to get loans for so many buy to lets, on such a narrow base.


  • Options
    #140
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Diemos wrote: »
    BOI, the bank that held best during the crisis. Is today at 1/3 it's value at boom time.

    If it hadn't been bailed out, it wouldn't have any value at all now. It would have been liquidated.


  • Options
    #141
    Diemos
    Registered Users Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭Diemos


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    If it hadn't been bailed out, it wouldn't have any value at all now. It would have been liquidated.
    No, please do some research before throwing out such comments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    beauf wrote: »
    It could be argued that tenant arrears and damage are also claimable and insurable. There's also wage protection schemes.

    I didn't ignore I just said on their own they did not cause the situation in this case. You are fighting the wrong argument and picking the wrong example to use for it.

    The govt actions have made it more difficult, and certain a very unattractive business for the smaller Landlord.

    But you have to wonder how they managed to get loans for so many buy to lets, on such a narrow base.

    You will not find an insurance product that covers rental losses like you are suggesting. It also requires an additional policy. Same goes for payment protection which you won't get for rental property.

    The buy to let's were given out before the government added the extra taxes and costs.

    You would have needed an exceptionally large margin to deal with the extra tax. People here are claiming the only margin of profit is when the mortgage is paid off. You do get it totalled 10%+ of gross rent for some?

    The government moved the goal posts while rent dropped. Do you think that was fair and reasonable?


  • Options
    #143
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    The government moved the goal posts while rent dropped. Do you think that was fair and reasonable?

    But didn't the same happen for everyone no matter what the business.
    E.g Plumber, Electrician, Software Developer. In all cases taxes went up and business dropped with the recession meaning less money coming in.

    Mortgage interest relief is now going back to 100%

    Fair enough there should be better measures brought in to reduce the risk from overholding which could easily wipe out a landlord.
    But otherwise it it that much different to other businesses.


  • Options
    #144
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    Fair enough there should be better measures brought in to reduce the risk from overholding which could easily wipe out a landlord.
    But otherwise it it that much different to other businesses.

    and all businesses have problems with non-payment from customers. A landlord could have a tenant occupying their property and not paying rent, so they lose revenue. A plumber or a software developer could spend time doing work, thus missing out on other work, and spend months trying to get the money they are owed.


  • Options
    #145
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    But didn't the same happen for everyone no matter what the business.
    E.g Plumber, Electrician, Software Developer. In all cases taxes went up and business dropped with the recession meaning less money coming in.

    Mortgage interest relief is now going back to 100%

    Fair enough there should be better measures brought in to reduce the risk from overholding which could easily wipe out a landlord.
    But otherwise it it that much different to other businesses.

    There is 3 aspects that i would personally like them to bring in.
    1. Reduce risk for dodgy tenants by skipping the court aspect and allowing the RTB to enforce an order where gardai can be used to evict a tenant within 2 months of non payment and money garnered from peoples wages if property damaged.
    2.Allow LPT as an allowable expense
    3. Flat rate expenses for things like petrol and phone bills

    People are complaining that ll are not treated like a business. well it should stay that way as traditional ll are not a business. As others have pointed out, people dont pay usc etc in a business until the money is paid to employee so if a ll wanted to, they could structure it as a business and "avoid" the fees they are complaining about.
    Taxes should remain the same as everyone else to keep it fair and transparent.


  • Options
    #146
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,784 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    RayCun wrote: »
    and all businesses have problems with non-payment from customers. A landlord could have a tenant occupying their property and not paying rent, so they lose revenue. A plumber or a software developer could spend time doing work, thus missing out on other work, and spend months trying to get the money they are owed.

    Yes but the business can continue to operate while they are trying to get paid from that one customer. The fact that one job/customer does not pay will not stop the plumber or software developer from doing other work.

    If a 'LL is not paid rent by the tenant they cannot get that money any other way. If the tenant overlords it prolongs that situation.


  • Options
    #147
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    Yes but the business can continue to operate while they are trying to get paid from that one customer. The fact that one job/customer does not pay will not stop the plumber or software developer from doing other work.

    If a 'LL is not paid rent by the tenant they cannot get that money any other way. If the tenant overlords it prolongs that situation.

    True but in reality most LL with one tenant are doing it on top of other work as a way to get some extra money, so they are not getting no money.
    If being a LL was the only income source I would expect them to have multiple tenants, and the chances of all overholding at them same time is very slim.
    Thats not to say there isn't more needs to be done to deal with overholding anyway.


  • Options
    #148
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,784 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    RayCun wrote: »
    and all businesses have problems with non-payment from customers. A landlord could have a tenant occupying their property and not paying rent, so they lose revenue. A plumber or a software developer could spend time doing work, thus missing out on other work, and spend months trying to get the money they are owed.

    You are also not considering that most businesses can charge more to other customers to offset a loss from a non-paying customer.

    In some cases they could increase their prices immediately as they are not price controlled. As far as I know that option is not available to A LL. Or the business may have insurance to cover situations like that.

    A previous poster said it is not possible to get cover for unpaid rent or tenant damage in ireland.

    Why is that? It seems to be available in the UK and is advertised regularly.


  • Options
    #149
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    Yes but the business can continue to operate while they are trying to get paid from that one customer. The fact that one job/customer does not pay will not stop the plumber or software developer from doing other work.

    If a 'LL is not paid rent by the tenant they cannot get that money any other way. If the tenant overlords it prolongs that situation.

    Yes, but suppose you are a plumber, and spend June working for a customer, who doesn't pay (or takes ages to pay). Yes, you can work in July, but you have a lot of bills coming through that you were going to pay with June's income, and the July income, when it comes in, is already earmarked for a different set of bills.

    At the end of the day, a month's income is a month's income, you can't help but notice the loss.


  • Options
    #150
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    You are also not considering that most businesses can charge more to other customers to offset a loss from a non-paying customer.

    In some cases they could increase their prices immediately as they are not price controlled. As far as I know that option is not available to A LL. Or they may have insurance to cover situations like that.

    And landlords can increase rent. Yes, there are some limits in RPZs, but their hands are not completely tied.

    A quick google shows lots of offers of landlord insurance, in Ireland.

    "Loss of rent up to 15% of combined Building Sum Insured & Contents Sum Insured if a buy-to-let property is uninhabitable following an insured loss"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,784 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    True but in reality most LL with one tenant are doing it on top of other work as a way to get some extra money, so they are not getting no money.
    If being a LL was the only income source I would expect them to have multiple tenants, and the chances of all overholding at them same time is very slim.
    Thats not to say there isn't more needs to be done to deal with overholding anyway.

    You are making a big assumption there...
    i know two 'LL's with one property and no other income.

    A non paying tenant can cause considerable stress as well as financial problems.


Advertisement