The sound of more BTL hitting the market

handlemaster · 18-05-2019 6:51am #1

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/eviction-banned-for-longterm-renters-38123625.html

With more government vote searching we will see more and more btl properties been sold. Again what could go wrong :pac:

every move this government lake is anti landlord.

ted1 · 18-05-2019 6:54am

They need to balance out the tenancy protection laws with swift eviction laws for non payment of rent. And anti social behaviour ( the Garda could sign a form confirming such on that one)

ThunbergsAreGo · 18-05-2019 7:09am

This will likely drive more non professional landlords from the market, removing supply.

There is no way I would willingly be a landlord today

handlemaster · 18-05-2019 7:09am

Agreed Swift eviction for non rent paying would free up some property for honest tenants

overkill602 · 18-05-2019 7:17am

ted1 wrote: »

They need to balance out the tenancy protection laws with swift eviction laws for non payment of rent. And anti social behaviour ( the Garda could sign a form confirming such on that one)

Non payment of rent and antisocial will never be addressed it would put the homeless problem into free fall

indefinite tenancies imposed on existing just makes the problem worst.
LLs remaining should be extremely careful who they rent to...

Assetbacked · 18-05-2019 8:17am

handlemaster wrote: »

Agreed Swift eviction for non rent paying would free up some property for honest tenants

Tax paying workers who are honest renters are the most squeezed group in society currently. FG have made it so and alienated the working classes from their voter base in favour of the wealthy (those that own property) and the scroungers.

It should be easy to evict someone for non-payment of rent and mortgages while making it difficult to evict someone who is renting and makes that place their home. And of course, as always, institutionals need to be taxed and the tax burden on private landlords reduced.

handlemaster · 18-05-2019 8:17am

Whatevery the fall out its sure to make things worse for everyone

The_Conductor · 18-05-2019 8:48am

Assetbacked wrote: »

Tax paying workers who are honest renters are the most squeezed group in society currently. FG have made it so and alienated the working classes from their voter base in favour of the wealthy (those that own property) and the scroungers.

It should be easy to evict someone for non-payment of rent and mortgages while making it difficult to evict someone who is renting and makes that place their home. And of course, as always, institutionals need to be taxed and the tax burden on private landlords reduced.

I disagree. Most of the people I know who own rental property- are dumping them. Government policy is driving them to divest out of the sector.

Current policy- suits the local authorities- as it absolves them from having to own and manage properties- they simply outsource this *duty* to the private sector (the wealthy who own property)- however, with the same flick of the brush- they make it impossible for the private sector to operate in the industry.

We have the 'forever-house/home' brigade- demanding their *right* to free property- with no cognisance that someone somewhere has to supply said free gaff.

The current situation- may suit the new largescale landlords- who own entire property blocks- and have no hesitation (or humanity) in their dealings with tenants- but it is actively driving the smaller scale landlords (those with 3 or fewer units) who make up over 85% of the sector- from the market.

On the brightside- it is increasing supply on the sale market- which continues to be constrained- however, at the cost of taking it from the rental sector.

overkill602 · 18-05-2019 9:01am

How right you are but on 1 hand we have people giving out about types of accommodation I personally believe this is the future getting the next government to raise the HAP for this sorted.....

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/grand-canal-dock/capital-dock-residence-sir-john-rogersons-quay-grand-canal-dock-dublin-1924009/

if this is all that's left they will want to build them high note 2 self beware of jumpers

hmmm · 18-05-2019 9:08am

It's mad stuff. Even the headline is enough to scare away people from renting their property. The government are clueless, and the opposition are worse.

Blueshoe · 18-05-2019 9:19am

Rent for life .
More expensive than a mortgage and nothing to show for it at the end.

The_Conductor · 18-05-2019 9:42am

Blueshoe wrote: »

Rent for life .
More expensive than a mortgage and nothing to show for it at the end.

Ultimately- we're all going to end up 6 feet under- the only thing that is different for people- is the direction that their journey takes them. Renting suits some people- as indeed does letting out a property that some people intend to retire to (this cohort is a lot larger than anyone cares to acknowledge).

We do need a discourse on housing in this country- however- we need to deal in facts- rather than soundbites and sentiments. We haven't gotten past the soundbites and sentiments stage (yet).

Blueshoe · 18-05-2019 9:53am

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ultimately- we're all going to end up 6 feet under- the only thing that is different for people- is the direction that their journey takes them. Renting suits some people- as indeed does letting out a property that some people intend to retire to (this cohort is a lot larger than anyone cares to acknowledge).

We do need a discourse on housing in this country- however- we need to deal in facts- rather than soundbites and sentiments. We haven't gotten past the soundbites and sentiments stage (yet).

What about the bit in between after you retire where you might have to live on state pension. No assets to possibly sell or pass onto your children if you have any.

The life time renter might end up with nothing. How will they pay their never ending rent?

Mad_maxx · 18-05-2019 10:04am

naughtb4 wrote: »

This will likely drive more non professional landlords from the market, removing supply.

There is no way I would willingly be a landlord today

I'm usually wrong but might this leave a bit of value for those brave ( or stupid) enough to get in?

If landlords leave in droves, apartments might be cheap relative to the rent available?

Might cash buyers be in a very strong position with so many motivated sellers?

Gumbo · 18-05-2019 10:06am

BTL hitting the market.

Marrsfield Avenue in Clongriffin.
372 apartments under construction, all bought by one foreign company in order to rent out!

Mad_maxx · 18-05-2019 10:08am

Blueshoe wrote: »

What about the bit in between after you retire where you might have to live on state pension. No assets to possibly sell or pass onto your children if you have any.

The life time renter might end up with nothing. How will they pay their never ending rent?

More state dependency, exactly what the left want

Blueshoe · 18-05-2019 10:14am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

More state dependency, exactly what the left want

Equals higher taxes for workers pushing more people into poverty.
Equals the rich who own blocks of apartments cleaning up and therefore getting even richer
The divide between rich and poor grows

Yeah the left haven't really thought it through

Old diesel · 18-05-2019 10:20am

We will have to see what exactly a clear reason is.....

In general having to give a reason shouldnt in itself be a problem.

Potential reasons.....

1) want to sell

2) need the house for relative.

3) the tenant did something wrong.

In a market where your decision to terminate could make someone homeless then the idea you can do that without a reason* seems unviable.

The law when it comes may indeed be unreasonable but having to give a reason in itself shouldnt be a problem.

The issue will be what reasons are allowed.

The Govt is making a mess of it as they have no plan for how rental is going to work.

*if the tenant has failed to pay rent or caused problems - then THAT is a clear reason.

18-05-2019 10:27am

This is going to lead to a massive amount of terminations for long term renters as anyone who can terminate on the “no reason” end of part 4 rule will (and they are damn right to also). They can then get in new tenants who will not be long term renters and so the new rule won’t apply allowing them to keep turning over tenants before they become “long term renters”.

More unreal nonsense from the government reducing the rights of the LL/property owner even more. Of course there should be an avenue for a person to retake their property for no reason. Imo the 4 year part 4 was reasonably fair the 6 year isn’t. Indefinite tenancies coupled with idiotic rent controls are insane.

handlemaster · 18-05-2019 10:28am

The government are only looking at it from the tenants view point. They need to work with both sides in order for the rental system to work.

tvjunki · 18-05-2019 10:28am

kceire wrote: »

BTL hitting the market.

Marrsfield Avenue in Clongriffin.
372 apartments under construction, all bought by one foreign company in order to rent out!

seemly the international companies reits do not have to adhere to the 4%rent increase. They can increase above the level every year and nothing said. They are also not paying 50% in tax as most landlords are.

tvjunki · 18-05-2019 10:35am

overkill602 wrote: »

Non payment of rent and antisocial will never be addressed it would put the homeless problem into free fall

indefinite tenancies imposed on existing just makes the problem worst.
LLs remaining should be extremely careful who they rent to...

The highest number of cases in rtb at the moment are for non payment of rent and I think mr Murphy said it was 80% were on the hap scheme. He even mentioned in discussion about the amendment to residential tenancies act that there should be supports to help those who cannot manage their money to help them budget! They don't pay the 10% towards the rent.

The new thing potential tenants are saying is they have mortgage approved and they want somewhere for a few months until they find somewhere.....then you get hit with a form for Hap. You definitely have to be on your toes,

tvjunki · 18-05-2019 10:40am

Ricky Gorgeous Superhuman wrote: »

This is going to lead to a massive amount of terminations for long term renters as anyone who can terminate on the “no reason” end of part 4 rule will (and they are damn right to also). They can then get in new tenants who will not be long term renters and so the new rule won’t apply allowing them to keep turning over tenants before they become “long term renters”.

More unreal nonsense from the government reducing the rights of the LL/property owner even more. Of course there should be an avenue for a person to retake their property for no reason. Imo the 4 year part 4 was reasonably fair the 6 year isn’t. Indefinite tenancies coupled with idiotic rent controls are insane.

They were talking about changing after first 6months to right of tenure to two months! Read the discussion with the committee phase of the rensidential tenancies act. That means both the tenant and landlord will be tied. They also want to change the notice period for a tenant to leave. Easy for tenants to walk out and landlords tied.

godtabh · 18-05-2019 11:04am

My rental is about €20k in negative equity. I'll be selling soon as i can if this comes into effect

Old diesel · 18-05-2019 11:20am

The problem is that the old traditional model isn't overly compatible with the future requirements of lifetime renting.

For lifetime renting you ideally want providers for whome providing homes is their PROFESSION.

The problem is that right now the professional supplier is a REIT who arent great either.

Having people being able to randomly jump in and out of the market isn't really compatible with long term rental.

You need backstop solutions to ensure a reliable supply chain.

You cannot plan supply on totally random decisions by totally random people.

L1011 · 18-05-2019 11:35am

tvjunki wrote: »

seemly the international companies reits do not have to adhere to the 4%rent increase. They can increase above the level every year and nothing said. They are also not paying 50% in tax as most landlords are.

They do have to adhere to it; however the majority of properties they have are new to the market and hence are not covered by RPZ - it only applies to properties which were already subject to tenancies.

Those that were already rented out, e.g. Kennedy Wilson had substantial holdings of BTR units already, are covered the same as any other.

hmmm · 18-05-2019 11:39am

Old diesel wrote: »

The problem is that the old traditional model isn't overly compatible with the future requirements of lifetime renting.

I agree with you re models, but the problem I see at the moment is that the politicians are just jumping from short term fix to short term fix, each of which makes a different problem worse. They've made no coherent argument as to what their strategy is - it's purely driven by media soundbites.

Now a lot of this is caused by the opposition and the homelessness industry and their half-arsed solutions - but the government should be stating what exactly they see their model is.

e.g. if they came out and said "We want to see 50% of the market supplied by professional investors, and we want a model where someone could rent an unfurnished property with security of tenure and rent increases capped at inflation" then I think people would be a lot more accepting.

Instead it's banning rent increases one day, then it's banning evictions, then it's unbanning evictions, then it's building apartments, then it's reversing that to build houses, then it's building in the city centre, then it's building outside the M50 etc etc etc.

Del2005 · 18-05-2019 11:54am

The_Conductor wrote: »

I disagree. Most of the people I know who own rental property- are dumping them. Government policy is driving them to divest out of the sector.

Current policy- suits the local authorities- as it absolves them from having to own and manage properties- they simply outsource this *duty* to the private sector (the wealthy who own property)- however, with the same flick of the brush- they make it impossible for the private sector to operate in the industry.

We have the 'forever-house/home' brigade- demanding their *right* to free property- with no cognisance that someone somewhere has to supply said free gaff.

The current situation- may suit the new largescale landlords- who own entire property blocks- and have no hesitation (or humanity) in their dealings with tenants- but it is actively driving the smaller scale landlords (those with 3 or fewer units) who make up over 85% of the sector- from the market.

On the brightside- it is increasing supply on the sale market- which continues to be constrained- however, at the cost of taking it from the rental sector.

The local authorities are owed huge amounts from people paying the token rent, so they are just putting the non payers onto private landlords than deal with them themselves.

When/if the government starts building social houses the non payment will become a bigger burden for local councils as the rent money will be part of their budget.

AndrewJRenko · 18-05-2019 12:40pm

handlemaster wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/eviction-banned-for-longterm-renters-38123625.html

With more government vote searching we will see more and more btl properties been sold. Again what could go wrong :pac:

every move this government lake is anti landlord.

So lots more houses on the market for those who want to buy then?

amcalester · 18-05-2019 12:43pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So lots more houses on the market for those who want to buy then?

Which tend to have lower occupancy rates than rentals, so more renters with fewer rentals.

handlemaster · 18-05-2019 12:48pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/eviction-banned-for-longterm-renters-38123625.html

With more government vote searching we will see more and more btl properties been sold. Again what could go wrong :pac:

every move this government lake is anti landlord.

So lots more houses on the market for those who want to buy then?

You should work for the government, fool proof policy

18-05-2019 1:02pm

amcalester wrote: »

Which tend to have lower occupancy rates than rentals, so more renters with fewer rentals.

Ahhhh but there will be less of the "landlord class"..... many campaigners regard this as a good thing. They may not have fully thought this through. :pac:

The future isn't looking any brighter for renters.

18-05-2019 1:03pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So lots more houses on the market for those who want to buy then?

If you've a few grand in your hip pockety for a deposit. Yes. Good times.

Mad_maxx · 18-05-2019 1:39pm

Del2005 wrote: »

The local authorities are owed huge amounts from people paying the token rent, so they are just putting the non payers onto private landlords than deal with them themselves.

When/if the government starts building social houses the non payment will become a bigger burden for local councils as the rent money will be part of their budget.

Social housing is a black hole in a country with such a deeply ingrained culture of entitlement

enricoh · 18-05-2019 4:15pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So lots more houses on the market for those who want to buy then?

Yeah, its all going swimmingly well with all the government anti landlord stuff.
There is 10 properties to rent in drogheda and surrounding areas on daft at the minute. There is 1, yes 1, 3 bed semi to rent.
With another anti landlord bill or two with a bit of luck we'll be able to count on one hand the properties to rent.
Come on minister, sit down with threshold + mcverry etc n dream up some more stuff! We can do this!

ThunbergsAreGo · 18-05-2019 5:17pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Del2005 wrote: »

The local authorities are owed huge amounts from people paying the token rent, so they are just putting the non payers onto private landlords than deal with them themselves.

When/if the government starts building social houses the non payment will become a bigger burden for local councils as the rent money will be part of their budget.

Social housing is a black hole in a country with such a deeply ingrained culture of entitlement

Every social house, raises prices and reduces supply for working people who have saved a deposit etc.

Old diesel · 18-05-2019 5:55pm

naughtb4 wrote: »

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Del2005 wrote: »

The local authorities are owed huge amounts from people paying the token rent, so they are just putting the non payers onto private landlords than deal with them themselves.

When/if the government starts building social houses the non payment will become a bigger burden for local councils as the rent money will be part of their budget.

Social housing is a black hole in a country with such a deeply ingrained culture of entitlement

Every social house, raises prices and reduces supply for working people who have saved a deposit etc.

What would get built in place of the social house that would boost supply and lower price.

What is the social housing stopping????

ThunbergsAreGo · 18-05-2019 7:23pm

Old diesel wrote: »

naughtb4 wrote: »

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Del2005 wrote: »

The local authorities are owed huge amounts from people paying the token rent, so they are just putting the non payers onto private landlords than deal with them themselves.

When/if the government starts building social houses the non payment will become a bigger burden for local councils as the rent money will be part of their budget.

Social housing is a black hole in a country with such a deeply ingrained culture of entitlement

Every social house, raises prices and reduces supply for working people who have saved a deposit etc.

What would get built in place of the social house that would boost supply and lower price.

What is the social housing stopping????

Non social housing? Affordable housing?

If an estate has 100 houses and 20 of them are deemed social, then there are 20 less houses available for the wider market.

runawaybishop · 18-05-2019 10:11pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So lots more houses on the market for those who want to buy then?

How well has that worked currently?

I've said it before but honestly with short-sighted thinking like this you deserve what you get.

LotharIngum · 19-05-2019 7:31am

I love the way the minister for increasing homelessness keeps mentioning long term leases when there is in actual fact no lease.
What there is is a one sided grab on property.
The tenant has absolutely no need to stick to a lease.
The landlord cant get out of one even if the tenant doesn't stick to their end.

These days if you own property and rent it you are basically giving away your property and rolling the dice.

A lease is a two way deal. Both parties should be able to agree on a term and both be held to that term with suitable sanctions should they break it.
Currently a landlord cannot negotiate the length of the term and also has no comeback if the tenant decides to break the lease.

This is no way to be in business. My advice to any landlord is to get out right now while they can. Because we are only short of the stroke of a pen that lets you never ever get your property back even to sell, never mind to try and make some money on it.

3DataModem · 19-05-2019 9:33am

Long terms leases are a great idea, as long as *deep breath* landlords have better protections from non-paying tenants (i.e. quick eviction)

Del2005 · 20-05-2019 9:13am

3DataModem wrote: »

Long terms leases are a great idea, as long as *deep breath* landlords have better protections from non-paying tenants (i.e. quick eviction)

And if that was the proposal then you would have people agreeing with it, long term tenants would mean long term income. The current proposal is to increase the time a tenant can stay without fixing the issues that are driving landlords out. A good idea badly implemented is bad.

handlemaster · 20-05-2019 9:15am

there are huge issues for landlords regard non payment , property damage and anti social behavior, none of this has been addressed or even acknowledged

Xterminator · 20-05-2019 11:04am

naughtb4 wrote: »

Non social housing? Affordable housing?

If an estate has 100 houses and 20 of them are deemed social, then there are 20 less houses available for the wider market.

are you that shortsighted?

If the houses are not diverted to social housing you have 20 people looking for rental properties on the open market (more competition for low end places pushing up prices for everyone! That means private renters trying to save a deposit struggle because rents are kept artificially high.

20 tenants in insecure housing situation, (sucks for them - but you seem low on empathy so i wount labour this point)

20 more sets of tax payer's money diverted via HAP etc to private landlords and little return to the taxpayer.

If you give them social housing the private rented marked cools off a little, though it would take a lot more than 20 properties to make this happen, allowing normal market condition to re-establish. People don't get priced out of the market, saving a deposit becomes easier.

20 tenants that cannot turfed out when it suits the landlord - so they have a home not a house.

20 sets of rental tied to income so that this money actually comes back into public coffers!!

You need to look beyond the end of your own nose to see that social housing is a good thing. You might not personally get a house form it, perhaps you kids wont either.

But the current situation is an abomination. Personally i would rather see the council build than buy. But id rather they bought from private builders than sat on their hands.

Old diesel · 20-05-2019 11:12am

Xterminator wrote: »

naughtb4 wrote: »

Non social housing? Affordable housing?

If an estate has 100 houses and 20 of them are deemed social, then there are 20 less houses available for the wider market.

are you that shortsighted?

If the houses are not diverted to social housing you have 20 people looking for rental properties on the open market (more competition for low end places pushing up prices for everyone! That means private renters trying to save a deposit struggle because rents are kept artificially high.

20 tenants in insecure housing situation, (sucks for them - but you seem low on empathy so i wount labour this point)

20 more sets of tax payer's money diverted via HAP etc to private landlords and little return to the taxpayer.

If you give them social housing the private rented marked cools off a little, though it would take a lot more than 20 properties to make this happen, allowing normal market condition to re-establish. People don't get priced out of the market, saving a deposit becomes easier.

20 tenants that cannot turfed out when it suits the landlord - so they have a home not a house.

20 sets of rental tied to income so that this money actually comes back into public coffers!!

You need to look beyond the end of your own nose to see that social housing is a good thing. You might not personally get a house form it, perhaps you kids wont either.

But the current situation is an abomination. Personally i would rather see the council build than buy. But id rather they bought from private builders than sat on their hands.

Good well argued post.....

Having rent linked to your income is actually an idea that deserves to be opened up to more people via changes to eligibility criteria to open up social housing or subsidised housing to more people...

The eviction thing could be handled by having emergency accomodation type units for those who cause problems.

Rather then the current set up where someone who has behaved themselves and done nothing wrong is in emergency accommodation while trouble makers might be in a council house.

The sound of more BTL hitting the market

Comments