Are rent controls making things better or worse for renters?

The_Conductor · 15-12-2018 8:15am

Dinarius wrote: »

Just to be clear; is that if I want to sell while they’re still within their lease?

Current lease is up September 30, 2019. If I gave them notice prior to this (30 days, 90 days?) would I still owe them 6 months rent, if the proposed law was in place?

Finally, is there a proposed period after which they’re entitled to this lump sum? E.g. would tenants who’d only been there one year be eligible?

Many thanks.

D.

You can't give notice under a fixed term lease, period.
If a tenant intends to stay beyond a fixed term lease- they are supposed to advise their landlord of such within 30 days of the finish of the fixed term lease- if they do not- they are liable for any reletting costs a landlord may incur.

Irrespective of a fixed term lease- once the tenant has been in a property for 6 months- they acquire all the rights associated with a Part IV tenancy under the Residential Tenancy Act. Nothing in a lease- including get out clauses, or a stipulation that the tenancy is for a fixed period- can impinge on a tenant's rights under the Residential Tenancies Act- and to be brutally honest- once you hit 6 months- your fixed term lease isn't worth the paper its written on.

I haven't seen the wording of the proposed legislation- so I don't know how long a tenant would have to be in a property before they acquire the right to demand a lumpsum from the landlord to leave. While I hate to say it- it sounds like an appalling situation- but its only formalising what is defacto happening on the ground already. A lot of landlords are making large payments to tenants to get them to leave- because they know that the RTB isn't of any use whatsoever if/when they want their property back.

The situation in Ireland has been worsening for landlords for quite some time- proposals like the current regulation- have precisely zero chance of being enacted- however, in some respects are to be welcomed- as they are causing many people to wake up and reappraise the environment in which they are operating.

I don't see it as a negative for 19k second hand units, formally let to tenants- to hit the 'For Sale' market- indeed- presumably a sizeable majority of them will be bought by people who were formally renting units- and thus will be coming owner occupiers for the first time.

Something that isn't being mentioned by anyone- but which I think merits exploration- is the possibility of some sort of a scheme to enable tenants to purchase the property they are renting (providing of course the landlord wishes to sell- there should be no coercion on anyone's part). This would simply codify an equalisation of rights for current tenants- whereby private tenants would acquire some rights that LA/Council tenants currently have. Note- this would have to be structured in such a manner not to impinge on anyone's property rights. Its kind of funny that its not been mentioned thus far. For landlords with more than one unit- who plainly aren't going to be seeking the return of a unit for personal use- it might be an elegant manner in which to exit the sector- perhaps it could be done in a tax efficient/helpful manner- to encourage participation?

Manic Moran · 15-12-2018 8:50am

It is argued (and I am inclined to agree) that the strong rent control in the San Francisco area is the reason that rents are so high right now. Well, at least, the places available. Folks already in are paying much less.

There is strong disincentive for people who currently rent in San Francisco to either move to a new rental property maybe better suited to their current life style (eg they now have a family, or might want to move closer to their new job), or go buy a house. It makes too much financial sense for them to squeeze their family into the small place they already have, and contribute to the commuting crush the Bay Area is infamous for: If they move, they’ll be paying a ridiculous amount in comparison.

So, they don’t move. This means that the amount of places available for new rent is few, and there is great competition for those few. The prices are insane. Which even further disincentivises folks from leaving their current places. In the meantime, we have tenants paying vastly different prices for similar properties, or landlords prohibited from getting fair market value.

Near as I can tell, the only people who benefit really are current tenants who are in the same life situation as they had when they signed their lease.

Fol20 · 15-12-2018 12:43pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Something that isn't being mentioned by anyone- but which I think merits exploration- is the possibility of some sort of a scheme to enable tenants to purchase the property they are renting (providing of course the landlord wishes to sell- there should be no coercion on anyone's part). This would simply codify an equalisation of rights for current tenants- whereby private tenants would acquire some rights that LA/Council tenants currently have. Note- this would have to be structured in such a manner not to impinge on anyone's property rights. Its kind of funny that its not been mentioned thus far. For landlords with more than one unit- who plainly aren't going to be seeking the return of a unit for personal use- it might be an elegant manner in which to exit the sector- perhaps it could be done in a tax efficient/helpful manner- to encourage participation?

It can and already does happen. The problem with this however is usually the tenant expects to get a discount when it should just be sold at market rate. In my own situation, i noticed a property that was sale agreed for 50k under market rate as the existing tenant wanted it.

Dinarius · 15-12-2018 12:58pm

tvjunki wrote: »

Just dont give a lease in September and the lease becomes a month by month lease and you have to work under the rules of the residental tenancies act that is there at the moment.

Keep any eye on the new rules and if this daft thing comes in where you have to give 6months rent the give statutory notice before it comes into law. Get the statutory declaration from rtb website and have it ready to give to the tenant. You need a peace commissioner to witness your signature. Make sure you work out how much notice you have to give from the start of the tenancy.
You will find the form here https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/forms-documents

Am really feeling like an innocent abroad in all of this.

Is it any wonder we have a housing crisis? Where's the incentive to be in this game?

Two things I'm still not clear on...

1. What is this six year period that has been referred to? Do some rights revert to me as landlord after this period?

2. If I don't give them a new lease next September (that would be the start of their 5th year) what residential tenancies act rules would I be operating under if I went month to month?

TBH, I'd re-let this place within 24 hours of advertising it, if they chose to leave. So, I have no concerns on that score. What's killing me is the 4% rise every two years cap (as I understand it) that I seem to be stuck with. It makes every expense I incur very hard to fund. It's let at €1250 p/m. Market value would be about €1500.

Thanks.

D.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 15-12-2018 2:09pm

currently being discussed on Radio 1

Wheres Me Jumper? · 15-12-2018 2:24pm

Paul Murphy's People Before Profit bill.
Say no more.
Looks like it wont get outta the blocks anyhow, as it's probably unconstitutional.

The Govt. are putting forward their own bill in January, which hopefully will not be so ideologically driven.
Like above poster i'll be watching this like a hawk.

the_syco · 16-12-2018 1:29pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Something that isn't being mentioned by anyone- but which I think merits exploration- is the possibility of some sort of a scheme to enable tenants to purchase the property they are renting (providing of course the landlord wishes to sell- there should be no coercion on anyone's part).

If the would-be buyers are living there, would the house have vacant possession?

Also, as LL's want the best price for their house, selling it at a set price (not on the open market) would mean that they're not getting the best price.

17-12-2018 8:20am

Dinarius wrote: »

Am really feeling like an innocent abroad in all of this.

Is it any wonder we have a housing crisis? Where's the incentive to be in this game?

Two things I'm still not clear on...

1. What is this six year period that has been referred to? Do some rights revert to me as landlord after this period?

2. If I don't give them a new lease next September (that would be the start of their 5th year) what residential tenancies act rules would I be operating under if I went month to month?

TBH, I'd re-let this place within 24 hours of advertising it, if they chose to leave. So, I have no concerns on that score. What's killing me is the 4% rise every two years cap (as I understand it) that I seem to be stuck with. It makes every expense I incur very hard to fund. It's let at €1250 p/m. Market value would be about €1500.

Thanks.

D.

If your tenants started out when legislation reflected a 4 year tenancy entitlement, then that's all your tenants are entitled to, if after then they are entitled to 6 years, look up when that change occurred, it seems likely your before that, I would seek advice on it and giving notice so as not to fall foul of the legistlatuon. Any new entitlement would be 6 years tenancy. Hard to say whether the other proposals will become reality but if they do it will be expensive and a hardship to get out of landlording. If they don't materialise and you move tenants on legitimately then you could lose out financially if you don't get rent in or have to sell in advance if what you might have.

Lux23 · 17-12-2018 4:02pm

Fol20 wrote: »

How about 4pc increase for existing tenants however if tenants leave you can set it at whatever rate you want. Current tenants can get a decent deal while ll are not snookered when they leave

Everyone landlord in the country would be evicting their tenants if they did that.

pwurple · 17-12-2018 4:58pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Everyone landlord in the country would be evicting their tenants if they did that.

Yup.

This is why the 'how about we try this' approach for rental sector is blind leading the blind.

It's simply unstable.

Fol20 · 17-12-2018 5:50pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Everyone landlord in the country would be evicting their tenants if they did that.

Not quite. What do you think happened before the rpz was brought in. Most ll and tenants just got on with things. Before the rpz rules were brought in some ll didnt increase rent on existing tenants for several years. I have even seen some threads mentioning the fact the rent they previously charged has doubled since then. The problem that the current situation has caused is that many decent ll have now been made more aware of “market rate” that they could achieve and they now know they will be hit with problems unless they also start increasing rent which hadnt crossed several ll minds in the past.

In my own case i have some uncles that have had the same tenants in some places before the recession started. The rent was decreased during that time and didn't bother increasing it during the good times until this rpz malarky started. It never crossed their mind about market rate as in their head they were just thinking that they will set it at the going rate when the new tenants move in which was always the way in the past. The more the goverent tweak the system, the worse it gets for ll and tenants alike.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 18-12-2018 12:30pm

personally it's because of loony left (proposed) legislation like this that i never rent to families, and probably never will.
at least with single people you know they most likely will move on after a few years, whereas a family that puts down roots could be in your property for 10 or 15 years.
in most circumstances this might be ok, but if you need your property back then i think you're better off with single people.

The_Conductor · 18-12-2018 6:42pm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

personally it's because of loony left (proposed) legislation like this that i never rent to families, and probably never will.
at least with single people you know they most likely will move on after a few years, whereas a family that puts down roots could be in your property for 10 or 15 years.
in most circumstances this might be ok, but if you need your property back then i think you're better off with single people.

You'd just better be careful that you don't articulate this to prospective tenants! I can see where you're coming from- and your hypothesis does have merit. Whether I'd do similar in your case- I don't know- however, were I letting a unit- and thought that I might want it for myself down the road- I'd 100% definitely think twice about the family dynamics of the prospective renters.........

LotharIngum · 18-12-2018 7:40pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

You'd just better be careful that you don't articulate this to prospective tenants! I can see where you're coming from- and your hypothesis does have merit. Whether I'd do similar in your case- I don't know- however, were I letting a unit- and thought that I might want it for myself down the road- I'd 100% definitely think twice about the family dynamics of the prospective renters.........

Ive heard people say they wouldn't let to families with children, not because of the damage children could do but because there is a child involved the parents will use them to justify overholding both to themselves and others.

Imagine a family with a child end up on the front page of a newspaper and the ll is automatically the bad guy.

IdHidden · 19-12-2018 10:30am

I am a landlord. I got trapped with a low rent because I didn’t raise it before rent controls. The tenants completely ruined the place, and didn’t want to move out. I just sold the house. Not worth the hassle. Small landlords are leaving the market and large foreign owned property companies are coming in they pay less tax and have teams of people to deal with problems.

Clearly a rent index and prices based on similar properties in similar areas would have been better than the current rules.

Fol20 · 19-12-2018 10:46am

LotharIngum wrote: »

Ive heard people say they wouldn't let to families with children, not because of the damage children could do but because there is a child involved the parents will use them to justify overholding both to themselves and others.

Imagine a family with a child end up on the front page of a newspaper and the ll is automatically the bad guy.

Exactly. Even the farmer in roscommon who was forceably evicted has several people coming to his defence. It only gets to that stage if you dont pay your bills for a very long time and even then. He could have left amicably but he chose not to. People ignore the facts of a case and use people emotions when they are getting evicted and for this very reason people pay higher mortgages and potentially higher rent.

ongarboy · 19-12-2018 10:48am

IdHidden wrote: »

I am a landlord. I got trapped with a low rent because I didn’t raise it before rent controls. The tenants completely ruined the place, and didn’t want to move out. I just sold the house. Not worth the hassle. Small landlords are leaving the market and large foreign owned property companies are coming in they pay less tax and have teams of people to deal with problems.

Clearly a rent index and prices based on similar properties in similar areas would have been better than the current rules.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/why-are-landlords-leaving-the-market-in-large-numbers-1.3360363

This article is from the start of 2018 but just as relevant now.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 19-12-2018 11:43am

IdHidden wrote: »

I am a landlord. I got trapped with a low rent because I didn’t raise it before rent controls. The tenants completely ruined the place, and didn’t want to move out. I just sold the house. Not worth the hassle. Small landlords are leaving the market and large foreign owned property companies are coming in they pay less tax and have teams of people to deal with problems.

Clearly a rent index and prices based on similar properties in similar areas would have been better than the current rules.

that depends. it would need to be an INDEPENDENT body.

can you imagine if billy boy barrett and his loony leftie friends got control of that?
as a LL i wouldn't even trust the PRTB to have control of it, as time & time again they have proven themselves to be anti-LL.

LotharIngum · 23-12-2018 5:57pm

Seems to be getting worse all the time. I reckon rent controls will finally drive out the private landlord this coming year.
I bet there will be very few houses to rent by the end of the year, end while it will be apartments only for rent from here on in the number of those will drop too.

I thing house shares and very expensive apartments is where all the rentals will be within a couple of years.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 23-12-2018 6:47pm

LotharIngum wrote: »

Seems to be getting worse all the time. I reckon rent controls will finally drive out the private landlord this coming year.
I bet there will be very few houses to rent by the end of the year, end while it will be apartments only for rent from here on in the number of those will drop too.

I thing house shares and very expensive apartments is where all the rentals will be within a couple of years.

as a LL i actually feel sorry for 95% of tenants.
they are stuck between a small percentage of greedy LLs, and a reactive, myopic Govt who seem intent on making a bad situation worse.

watch out for many more homeless people in 2019.

Fol20 · 23-12-2018 6:51pm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

as a LL i actually feel sorry for 95% of tenants.
they are stuck between a small percentage of greedy LLs, and a reactive, myopic Govt who seem intent on making a bad situation worse.

watch out for many more homeless people in 2019.

The ironic thing is that the digger the hole they make, the more homeless are created and in turn make it more and more difficult to give ll anything as the charity will be out in arms complaining

airportgirl83 · 24-12-2018 12:52am

My brother's lease was for 2 years (expired sometime in the Summer) and on a month by month basis since. Should he ask for a new lease now? He's actively looking to buy a house but it's difficult and might take few more months. I don't want him to find himself out on a street because he didn't renew the lease. At the same time, he's worried that if he asks for a new lease, his rent might go up. Property is rented through the estate agent, landlord lives abroad. Any suggestions?

murphaph · 24-12-2018 9:59am

He has full part IV protection. A lease is of no benefit to him.

Cuddlesworth · 25-12-2018 12:30pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Not quite. What do you think happened before the rpz was brought in. Most ll and tenants just got on with things. Before the rpz rules were brought in some ll didnt increase rent on existing tenants for several years. I have even seen some threads mentioning the fact the rent they previously charged has doubled since then. The problem that the current situation has caused is that many decent ll have now been made more aware of “market rate” that they could achieve and they now know they will be hit with problems unless they also start increasing rent which hadnt crossed several ll minds in the past.

In my own case i have some uncles that have had the same tenants in some places before the recession started. The rent was decreased during that time and didn't bother increasing it during the good times until this rpz malarky started. It never crossed their mind about market rate as in their head they were just thinking that they will set it at the going rate when the new tenants move in which was always the way in the past. The more the goverent tweak the system, the worse it gets for ll and tenants alike.

Its a good point, a lot of landlords were not really aware of how much they were charging compared to the "market rate" at the time. Once they were told they could no longer charge more, then they became very aware.

Which leads into, what exactly will happen to rents when the supposed temporary RPZ gets lifted. And I feel like the RPZ can never be lifted until the market goes into a severe depression. It would cause a significant number of those now aware and pissed off landlords to bump their rents up significantly on the day it lifts. Trying to ease it out with gradual relaxation on the current limits, will just see maximum increases per year and the bandaid comes off slowly instead.

Fol20 · 25-12-2018 1:30pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its a good point, a lot of landlords were not really aware of how much they were charging compared to the "market rate" at the time. Once they were told they could no longer charge more, then they became very aware.

Which leads into, what exactly will happen to rents when the supposed temporary RPZ gets lifted. And I feel like the RPZ can never be lifted until the market goes into a severe depression. It would cause a significant number of those now aware and pissed off landlords to bump their rents up significantly on the day it lifts. Trying to ease it out with gradual relaxation on the current limits, will just see maximum increases per year and the bandaid comes off slowly instead.

The peoblem however is that every singlevyearvwithout fail. The government arectinkering with legislation. Right now we need stability and they are not providingbit right now. This jan or feb. more laws are expected. Next yea, we should be seeing an end to rpz in major cities but i suspect again, they will tinker with it. I pray they will use the excuse that its against legislation when it was brought on as a temp move but we shall see

alias no.9 · 25-12-2018 8:13pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its a good point, a lot of landlords were not really aware of how much they were charging compared to the "market rate" at the time. Once they were told they could no longer charge more, then they became very aware.

Which leads into, what exactly will happen to rents when the supposed temporary RPZ gets lifted. And I feel like the RPZ can never be lifted until the market goes into a severe depression. It would cause a significant number of those now aware and pissed off landlords to bump their rents up significantly on the day it lifts. Trying to ease it out with gradual relaxation on the current limits, will just see maximum increases per year and the bandaid comes off slowly instead.

Unwinding the RPZ will be messy. You can't do it without a period where all new tenancies are marked to the same benchmark. There are two ways of doing this.

One is to allow unfettered marking to market rates for new tenancies which will show as a crazy hike in average rental stats with the expected chaos.

The other option is to mark everybody to a rental index for their area (€/sq.m) which would for the first time pull back the top end of the market, the landlords who led the charge to craziness, yet were rewarded by the RPZ rules relative to the rest of the market. This should have happened a very short time after the original RPZ rules came in. It would see landlords of comparable properties treated equally and tenants of comparable properties treated equally with some balance between landlords and tenants.

Fol20 · 25-12-2018 11:30pm

alias no.9 wrote: »

Unwinding the RPZ will be messy. You can't do it without a period where all new tenancies are marked to the same benchmark. There are two ways of doing this.

One is to allow unfettered marking to market rates for new tenancies which will show as a crazy hike in average rental stats with the expected chaos.

The other option is to mark everybody to a rental index for their area (€/sq.m) which would for the first time pull back the top end of the market, the landlords who led the charge to craziness, yet were rewarded by the RPZ rules relative to the rest of the market. This should have happened a very short time after the original RPZ rules came in. It would see landlords of comparable properties treated equally and tenants of comparable properties treated equally with some balance between landlords and tenants.

This actually sounds worse. Basically you want the ll that did increase to market rate to have decreased rent. And leave the current cheaper ll as is. So best of both for tenants so. Personally im hoping for a mass exodis of ll this year through the capital gains exceptions along with neg equity owners selling up. If there is a big jump in leaves. Then the government will have to do something for the existing ll

The_Conductor · 26-12-2018 8:21am

Unwinding the RPZ legislation- the legislation itself- is simple. It has a defined lifespan- and could simply be allowed to lapse.
The whole can of worms though- is the mess its made for both tenants and landlords- with spurious renovations of properties on the parts of landlords- and tenants holding onto patently unsuitable property- to the extent that they're loosing HAP payments given its unsuitability- because they can't find alternate accommodation.

The interventions in the sector have been such that there patently is not a functioning sector any longer.

If there was a defined roadmap for the unwinding of the legislation- with a massive social housing contruction scheme implemented in tandem with abolition of RPZ legislation- and better enforcement options for landlords and tenants who find themselves in untenable situations- it would be hard to suggest that keeping the legislation in any form- is defensible.

The aim of the RPZ legislation- has, contrary to what you might believe in the media- succeeded. Inflation in rents- has subsided. The metric that they roll out though- is the asking prices on DAFT (and similar venues)- aka- new rental prices- not what is happening with the 78% of the sector who are not moving accommodation in any given year.

The biggest single achievement of the RPZ legislation- is that it is normalised long term renting as a viable 'choice' in the Irish market- this is seen in the year-on-year increase in the lengths of tenancies reported by the RTB. Longer and longer tenancies- are becoming normal- because people are terrified to leave their 'rent-controlled' properties and throw themselves at the mercy of the market.

RPZ legislation- is defacto rent control legislation- in the manner in which it operates.

The 4% increase per annum- is satisfactory for the REITs and the bigger operators in the market (who I see now include two Irish and one German pension fund, among their numbers). It is not satisfactory- for the thousands of landlords- caught at abnormally low rent levels who were banned from normalising their rents. It is also not satisfactory- if/when a business relationship breaks down- and a landlord finds that it still takes between 2-3 years to get their property back- despite impeccable statistics from the RTB showing they give a first meeting to landlords who have overholding tenants within 7 weeks. The operative part of this is the phrase 'first meeting'. Its the first on a long long road........

Our rental sector has been irreparably broken. Is it time for us to acknowledge this- and move on- and accept that if you want to rent in future- you are automatically talking about an apartment from a REIT in a city centre, without exception? Two wrongs don't make a REIT- to excuse a pun, but the constant tinkering with the legislation and the regulatory environment- is bloody impossible for all but the largest operators to operate in- hell, even the estate agents are getting out of property management business- its too complicated to keep on top of.

Dinarius · 26-12-2018 11:26am

Two points on the above post.

Yes, RPZ stalled rents, but it has crucified availability.

Secondly, when you talk about yearly increases of 4%; isn’t it every two years?

Thanks.

D.

lcwill · 26-12-2018 12:52pm

Landlords could be given the option to base rent on a €/sq.m index, with adjustments for characteristics of the apartment, I.e. higher amount for apartment with elevator, car park, furnished, balcony, etc.

The contract can indicate if the rent as been set based on market rates or on the index and when you register your tenancy you indicate which it is. Landlords who set rent based on the index can pay a lower rate of tax.

This is how it works in Italy - if rent is set based on the index you pay 10% tax, otherwise you pay tax at your marginal rate.

The_Conductor · 26-12-2018 12:57pm

Dinarius wrote: »

Two points on the above post.

Yes, RPZ stalled rents, but it has crucified availability.

Secondly, when you talk about yearly increases of 4%; isn’t it every two years?

Thanks.

D.

Nope 4% per annum.

The first 4% increase is after 24 months- if the tenancy commenced prior to 24th December 2016- and every 12 months thereafter (with 90 days notice of the increase). Tenancies after 24th Dec 2016- its a straight 12 months, no initial 24 month period. Note- the 24 month period- was since the date of last rent review- so even for tenancies that commenced prior to 24th Dec 2016- there could be an immediate increase, as per the calculator on the RTB website- and then 12 month increases thereafter. For a cumulative increase in a tenancy that commenced prior to 24th Dec 2016- its 4% for first 24 months and 4% per 12 months thereafter- so say a tenant had an increase on the 23rd Dec 2011- and none since then- the landlord could increase 4% to bring them up to 24th Dec 2013- and 4% per annum thereafter- so cumulatively- they could increase the rent by 24% in one foul swoop..........

It all depends on when the tenancy commenced- and when the last review occurred.

Thespoofer · 26-12-2018 1:12pm

Have friends in Switzerland that signed a rental agreement for 20 years back in approximately 2004 for a house.

In this time they are raring their kids, have renovated the house to suit their needs so both parties are happy I guess. They themselves have taken out a mortgage to invest in a block of 4 apartments as future security.

My point being I suppose is maybe we need to look abroad to what type of system these countries use as there seems to alot more confidence on both sides when renting/renting out a property.

Fol20 · 26-12-2018 1:48pm

lcwill wrote: »

Landlords could be given the option to base rent on a €/sq.m index, with adjustments for characteristics of the apartment, I.e. higher amount for apartment with elevator, car park, furnished, balcony, etc.

The contract can indicate if the rent as been set based on market rates or on the index and when you register your tenancy you indicate which it is. Landlords who set rent based on the index can pay a lower rate of tax.

This is how it works in Italy - if rent is set based on the index you pay 10% tax, otherwise you pay tax at your marginal rate.

Anything out of Italy, id run a mile away. Their repuation for their economy and efficiency businesses proceeds them

.

Juat kidding. Interest proposition. Depending on figures. Some may take a deal like that especially if you own the property outright. I know this might sound like a bit much when your talking about ll. However that system might create a greator form of inequality between ll where the super rich will howrd properties since their cash rich while the mom and pop ll cant afford them anymore

The_Conductor · 26-12-2018 8:44pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Anything out of Italy, id run a mile away. Their repuation for their economy and efficiency businesses proceeds them .

Juat kidding. Interest proposition. Depending on figures. Some may take a deal like that especially if you own the property outright. I know this might sound like a bit much when your talking about ll. However that system might create a greator form of inequality between ll where the super rich will howrd properties since their cash rich while the mom and pop ll cant afford them anymore

The Mom and Pop can buy shares in a REIT (or any other investment category) towards their pension. Hell- pension companies are piling into REITs. The other big category for pension companies- are super tax efficient investments such as forestry- which also gives them oodles of good press. The future for Mom and Pop businesses- is to get the hell out of owning single units- in favour of MUD type managed shareholdings- where entire developments are let- with no owner occupiers. We've started to go down that road even here in Ireland- with some rather interesting developments that might never have sold- now being let as luxury developments (Cherry Orchard anyone?)

The strangest thing in all of this- is how it all managed to fly under the radar- this seismic shift that is going to effect Irish society for the next 100 years- happened without any discussion in the media- nada.

beauf · 28-12-2018 3:53am

alias no.9 wrote: »

....I'll now be watching this bill like a hawk as the part IV date looms in a few month. I won't be tied into an indefinite term with no provision for terminating a tenancy to sell the property in a scenario where banks won't offer a mortgage to prospective buyers without vacant possession. If the risk is hanging out there, I may just have to give them notice before part IV, something I wouldn't otherwise do. I'll keep it vacant until this is decided one way or the other, if it passes into law I'll be selling.

I wonder how many LL will think the same. Terminate Part IV as they expire, then sit on the property, until it becomes clear what the Govt will do.

If nothing else change tenants, which delays when the next part IV kicks in?

At that point the Govt will have put it cards on the table and LL will know if its worth staying in or selling.

overkill602 · 28-12-2018 9:13am

beauf wrote: »

I wonder how many LL will think the same. Terminate Part IV as they expire, then sit on the property, until it becomes clear what the Govt will do.

If nothing else change tenants, which delays when the next part IV kicks in?

At that point the Govt will have put it cards on the table and LL will know if its worth staying in or selling.

Stopped renewing Part4s early last year terminating before they expired following the process to the letter of the law replaced with short lets, know many who are sticking with abnb due to uncertainty I think we have a fair idea where it going in the short term.

So my plan is 50% exiting and leave vacant for family are my considered options uk market dropping may present some opportunities in a more stable rental environment

Dinarius · 16-05-2019 3:39pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Nope 4% per annum.

The first 4% increase is after 24 months- if the tenancy commenced prior to 24th December 2016- and every 12 months thereafter (with 90 days notice of the increase). Tenancies after 24th Dec 2016- its a straight 12 months, no initial 24 month period. Note- the 24 month period- was since the date of last rent review- so even for tenancies that commenced prior to 24th Dec 2016- there could be an immediate increase, as per the calculator on the RTB website- and then 12 month increases thereafter. For a cumulative increase in a tenancy that commenced prior to 24th Dec 2016- its 4% for first 24 months and 4% per 12 months thereafter- so say a tenant had an increase on the 23rd Dec 2011- and none since then- the landlord could increase 4% to bring them up to 24th Dec 2013- and 4% per annum thereafter- so cumulatively- they could increase the rent by 24% in one foul swoop..........

It all depends on when the tenancy commenced- and when the last review occurred.

Belatedly, thanks for that explanation.

Their renewal date is October 1. So, I presume that I must inform them of a 4% increase by June 30.

This coming October will be their 5th year in the apartment.

D.

handlemaster · 16-05-2019 3:47pm

with all the restrictions that landlords have now, even if the landlord stays in the business she will be more likely to add the max 4 % per year because they are getting screwed ever time the government wants to please the voters

beauf · 17-05-2019 9:24am

The_Conductor wrote: »

...
The strangest thing in all of this- is how it all managed to fly under the radar- this seismic shift that is going to effect Irish society for the next 100 years- happened without any discussion in the media- nada...

Not really. Most people in these forums don't see the bigger picture. They are only interested in how things effect them in the short term. They are oblivious to the longer term issues they are heading blindly into.

Fol20 · 17-05-2019 9:43am

beauf wrote: »

Not really. Most people in these forums don't see the bigger picture. They are only interested in how things effect them in the short term. They are oblivious to the longer term issues they are heading blindly into.

Just out of interest, in your opinion what are the longer term issues you see?

mrslancaster · 17-05-2019 11:03am

Fol20 wrote: »

Just out of interest, in your opinion what are the longer term issues you see?

Fol20, it seems to me that long term or lifetime renting is a bad idea.

From posts on boards it looks like rents will keep going up at least by 4% per annum. That might be ok as long as tenants have the means to pay whether they have a job or with government support. That can change.

Not sure if it's a good position to find yourself in at retirement age or if you get sick & can't work. Paying rent with annual increases until you die is mad - not for the owners who by all accounts will soon be only "professional landlords"

Imo people should really try to own their home. before anyone attacks me over the fiasco due to the crash, i think it still makes sense to buy if at all possible

Repaying a mortgage is probably about the same as monthly rent but the repayments go down every year and eventually they stop. Getting deposits together is a major headache but there's no worry about getting a notice to leave because the 'LL wants to sell etc

The only ones who will benefit from lifetime rentals are big business and it looks like that model is being pushed and promoted in ireland. I wonder who are the major shareholders of all these investment funds who are trying to secure long term profits on the back of tenants?

Imo government should help people to buy instead of putting huge amounts of money into rents that have no end date. nice for big landlords

The image of pensioners being evicted for whatever reason is not good but it looks like that could happen if more people choose long term renting over buying. Stories of evictions from our past history seem to be long gone.

Fol20 · 17-05-2019 12:12pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

Fol20, it seems to me that long term or lifetime renting is a bad idea.

From posts on boards it looks like rents will keep going up at least by 4% per annum. That might be ok as long as tenants have the means to pay whether they have a job or with government support. That can change.

Not sure if it's a good position to find yourself in at retirement age or if you get sick & can't work. Paying rent with annual increases until you die is mad - not for the owners who by all accounts will soon be only "professional landlords"

Imo people should really try to own their home. before anyone attacks me over the fiasco due to the crash, i think it still makes sense to buy if at all possible

Repaying a mortgage is probably about the same as monthly rent but the repayments go down every year and eventually they stop. Getting deposits together is a major headache but there's no worry about getting a notice to leave because the 'LL wants to sell etc

The only ones who will benefit from lifetime rentals are big business and it looks like that model is being pushed and promoted in ireland. I wonder who are the major shareholders of all these investment funds who are trying to secure long term profits on the back of tenants?

Imo government should help people to buy instead of putting huge amounts of money into rents that have no end date. nice for big landlords

The image of pensioners being evicted for whatever reason is not good but it looks like that could happen if more people choose long term renting over buying. Stories of evictions from our past history seem to be long gone.

Some very valid points here to think about.

Ireland still has a very high ownership rate(for better or worse) compared to several other countries western countries. This i suspect will see a gradual culture change to long term renting.

Right now rents will continue to rise at the max of 4pc per year. What people fail to realise is that it will not always be like this. I still remember a time when rents where i have my portfolio were half what they are now and this was only 3-5 years ago. There will be a change at some point where supply comes on board or another recession and rents drop.

Yes, right now paying a mortgage may or may not be cheaper - This is only the short term though and this will change again. The main difference though is if you loose your job, have to move etc, a boiler breaks down, being a renter gives you so much more flexibility to adjust while if you own your home, you need to keep up mortgage payments or you risk loosing your home. if you have a damaged roof like one of my places currently have, it might cost over 10k to repair. These are some very big things you need to be careful of with house buying.

Yes long term, owning your own home is better as in 30 years, you will own it outright however not everyone will ever be able to afford this. Eve after the fiasco in 08, if you never intend on selling your house and keep chipping away at the principle it is still better than renting.

There are proposals for shared kitchens etc. Personally, i think this would be a great proposition for the elderly as they have their own private space that would be affordable yet at the same time have company.

Personally, people that can afford to buy should buy when they are ready. People that cant need a system that promotes long term rentals instead of positioning them as a temporary measure. All properties should be unfurnished like the germans and french and let people paint the walls whatever they want. If a ll and tenant sign a contract of say 5,10 or 20 years, they are BOTH obligated to fulfil this unless dually compensated.

Samuel T. Cogley · 17-05-2019 12:19pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Some very valid points here to think about.

Ireland still has a very high ownership rate(for better or worse) compared to several other countries western countries. This i suspect will see a gradual culture change to long term renting.

Right now rents will continue to rise at the max of 4pc per year. What people fail to realise is that it will not always be like this. I still remember a time when rents where i have my portfolio were half what they are now and this was only 3-5 years ago. There will be a change at some point where supply comes on board or another recession and rents drop.

Yes, right now paying a mortgage may or may not be cheaper - This is only the short term though and this will change again. The main difference though is if you loose your job, have to move etc, a boiler breaks down, being a renter gives you so much more flexibility to adjust while if you own your home, you need to keep up mortgage payments or you risk loosing your home. if you have a damaged roof like one of my places currently have, it might cost over 10k to repair. These are some very big things you need to be careful of with house buying.

Yes long term, owning your own home is better as in 30 years, you will own it outright however not everyone will ever be able to afford this. Eve after the fiasco in 08, if you never intend on selling your house and keep chipping away at the principle it is still better than renting.

There are proposals for shared kitchens etc. Personally, i think this would be a great proposition for the elderly as they have their own private space that would be affordable yet at the same time have company.

Personally, people that can afford to buy should buy when they are ready. People that cant need a system that promotes long term rentals instead of positioning them as a temporary measure. All properties should be unfurnished like the germans and french and let people paint the walls whatever they want. If a ll and tenant sign a contract of say 5,10 or 20 years, they are BOTH obligated to fulfil this unless dually compensated.

Away with you and your policies that make some actual sense.

17-05-2019 4:11pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Some very valid points here to think about.

Ireland still has a very high ownership rate(for better or worse) compared to several other countries western countries. This i suspect will see a gradual culture change to long term renting.

Right now rents will continue to rise at the max of 4pc per year. What people fail to realise is that it will not always be like this. I still remember a time when rents where i have my portfolio were half what they are now and this was only 3-5 years ago. There will be a change at some point where supply comes on board or another recession and rents drop.

Yes, right now paying a mortgage may or may not be cheaper - This is only the short term though and this will change again. The main difference though is if you loose your job, have to move etc, a boiler breaks down, being a renter gives you so much more flexibility to adjust while if you own your home, you need to keep up mortgage payments or you risk loosing your home. if you have a damaged roof like one of my places currently have, it might cost over 10k to repair. These are some very big things you need to be careful of with house buying.

Yes long term, owning your own home is better as in 30 years, you will own it outright however not everyone will ever be able to afford this. Eve after the fiasco in 08, if you never intend on selling your house and keep chipping away at the principle it is still better than renting.

There are proposals for shared kitchens etc. Personally, i think this would be a great proposition for the elderly as they have their own private space that would be affordable yet at the same time have company.

Personally, people that can afford to buy should buy when they are ready. People that cant need a system that promotes long term rentals instead of positioning them as a temporary measure. All properties should be unfurnished like the germans and french and let people paint the walls whatever they want. If a ll and tenant sign a contract of say 5,10 or 20 years, they are BOTH obligated to fulfil this unless dually compensated.

Thats great, will you do that? a lot of people wont and for good reason.
Have you ever dealt with taking care of the elderly, you dont think people want privacy? even with people of any age, different people have different standards, Im thinking particularily of hygiene and whats acceptable, and thats when they are coherent.
Id be all for smaller units for single people with certain shared facilities, but there would need to be certain secure private facilities and that includes food storage.
If you think its such a great idea, maybe go live in a youth hostel for a month and then come back and let us know what you think, now add the dimension of age to that, I forsee problems, the likes of the people proposing this will not be the ones living in those conditions.
Sharing in a small group of people in a house is no comparison to sharing with a very large group of people.

beauf · 17-05-2019 4:46pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Just out of interest, in your opinion what are the longer term issues you see?

Over heated economy.

"Simply put, an overheated economy is one that is expanding at a rate that is unsustainable...Another characteristic of an overheated economy is abnormally high levels of consumer confidence, which is often followed by a sharp reversal...."

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/oecd-warns-of-overheating-in-irish-economy-1.3514222

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6018135/Experts-say-housing-market-rate-rises-indicate-overheating-economy.html

Housing and rent controls are a symptom of this. We are looking at all the symptoms, and not looking at root cause.

We do not have a sustainable economy, and as a result our approach to housing is not sustainable.

beauf · 17-05-2019 4:49pm

Fol20 wrote: »

...Ireland still has a very high ownership rate(for better or worse) compared to several other countries western countries. This i suspect will see a gradual culture change to long term renting. ...

We don't have comparable rules for eviction and anti-social activity, or indeed risks for Landlords as they do in these other countries.

So until that fixed, long term sustainable renting isn't viable.

Are rent controls making things better or worse for renters?

Comments