Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-10-2018 11:10am

andekwarhola wrote: »

You'll probably disagree, but I do think allowing a proportion of long term residents to buy there does have positive social effects in areas and makes them more stable.

That said, doing it in a vacuum of no meaningful levels of replacement social housing construction (for decades now) is mental, I agree.

In fairness your point is made nowhere more than Dublin 5 which has seen some areas go from virtual no go areas to lovely places to live.

seamus · 10-10-2018 11:13am

gozunda wrote: »

They don't. But that question should be redirected to ask why should the taxpayer be subsidising bad tenants. I see a lot of issues on boards of rents paid as part of social welfare not being used to pay rent.

How is that behaviour not nipped in the bud and rents paid directly? There will always be some scammers trying to ride the system. There are also good tennants and good landlords.

Heh. It's a complicated issue because people are sh1t, really.

Reasons not to pay it directly to landlords included scams that landlords might run to continue claiming HAP after a resident has been evicted, or to extract more rent from a tenant because it gave the landlord "control" over the payment. If the tenant gets the money, they control the payment of the rent. The requirement of a landlord to provide bank details also makes it easier to discriminate against HAP recipients.

Reasons not to pay it to tenants include similar scams of underpaying or not paying landlords.

So striking a balance is difficult.

10-10-2018 11:13am

Why should there be mortgage interest relief? I always thought it was a solid piece of advice to never borrow money to make an investment so why encourage it for one-off or small-scale landlords?

The Crowman · 10-10-2018 11:15am

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think some landlords in Ireland have a tendency to play the poor mouth. In receipt of the biggest rents in the history of the state, yet they're very vocal about how they're mistreated by the government ect. I get that there needs to be more protection against bad tenants but anyone who has rented has encountered their own share of dodgy landlords too.

I think it grates on people that they're moaning about life during a housing crisis which ultimately benefits them and makes it harder for tenants even on a decent wage. I lived and rented in other countries and currently live in the UK and I have to say the standard of service is far higher in other places. One thing that Irish landlords never seemed to get is the fact that once they rent a property out it's someone else's residence. You don't get to turn up unannounced and walk around.

So to sum up the cool story bro I think that Irish landlords really shouldn't feel like the victims in the housing crisis. Yes some things could work better but as a group they could be doing a lot worse.

This. In my renting days you'd always get this. In one building this nosey busybody creep of a woman was the supervisor and she used to enter peoples rooms when they were out and poke around, she had the keys for them all.

Sultan_of_Ping · 10-10-2018 11:21am

grahambo wrote: »

^^^ This ^^^
is ALOT of people.

It's completely unprofitable to Rent a house that has a recently drawn down mortgage on it.

The only way you can make a living on being a Landlord is if you inherit a property.

The other option is Air B&B. Short term lets are 0 hassle and quite profitable.
But the government don't want this now*, and could be planning to make a move against it.
I think it's a bad idea, interfering with the Free Market always makes things worse.

This times 100!!

By my reckoning if you are going to borrow on a buy-to-let you need to be buying at least 3 and preferably 5 properties (in Dublin) to give you adequate turnover and enough contingency.

I don't know how people who have one property and/or who are accidental landlords manage.

We were lucky in the sense we inherited a 50% share in a property and managed to buy out the other share at a very reasonable price (wife and brother-in-law inherited and we bought out his interest in the property and sold her interest in another property to him!!).

The intention was to have it for the kids if they went to uni in Dublin (they didn't!!), so we set it.

We'd love nothing better than a decent tenant (i.e. one who treats the property reasonably and pays the rent generally when agreed) but after the last experience (which effectively wiped out our contingency fund) we've opted for Air BnB and short-term executive lets through an agency. We simply couldn't or wouldn't take the chance of another bad tenant while we've no contingency.

Beta Ray Bill · 10-10-2018 11:21am

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In fairness your point is made nowhere more than Dublin 5 which has seen some areas go from virtual no go areas to lovely places to live.

andekwarhola wrote: »

You'll probably disagree, but I do think allowing a proportion of long term residents to buy there does have positive social effects in areas and makes them more stable.

That said, doing it in a vacuum of no meaningful levels of replacement social housing construction (for decades now) is mental, I agree.

I'd agree with you both, but it depends on who's buying.

My point it that it's very unfair. In Kilbarrack alone there's be 14 properties sold well below (1/3) of their value.

21/05/2010 €63,750.00 21 Mount Olive Park, Kilbarrack, Dublin
08/12/2011 €55,000.00 ** 93 Briarfield Road, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5, Dublin 5, Dublin
17/10/2012 €67,975.00 ** 38 Greendale Road, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5
01/05/2012 €88,275.00 ** 9 Briarfield Walk, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5, Dublin
03/10/2013 €59,125.00 ** 64 Mount Olive Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5
17/07/2013 €70,685.00 ** 41 Mount Olive Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5
10/07/2013 €64,790.00 ** 95 Mount Olive Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5
15/07/2014 €92,500.00 ** 66 BRIARFIELD RD, KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
10/04/2015 €116,528.14 ** 48 THORNVILLE AVE, KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
27/10/2015 €21,000.00 ** 15 BRIARFIELD RD KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, DUBLIN, Dublin 5
14/12/2016 €98,413.43 ** 66 BRIARFIELD RD, KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
05/10/2017 €114,000.00 ** 53, SAINT BERACHS PLACE, KILBARRACK DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
06/07/2017 €92,500.00 ** 12 THORNVILLE PARK, KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
29/05/2018 €105,000.00 ** 20, MOUNT OLIVE ROAD, KILBARRACK DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5

14 units gone with no replacement units built. Mind you 66 BRIARFIELD RD was sold twice for below market value, wonder what that's about.

Those are all council estate houses that have been sol to their tenants in the last 8 years.
I'd have bought a house in Thornville if I was able to get it for €100,000. It's not bad around there, but that's not open to me.

gozunda · 10-10-2018 11:22am

seamus wrote: »

Heh. It's a complicated issue because people are sh1t, really.

Reasons not to pay it directly to landlords included scams that landlords might run to continue claiming HAP after a resident has been evicted, or to extract more rent from a tenant because it gave the landlord "control" over the payment. If the tenant gets the money, they control the payment of the rent. The requirement of a landlord to provide bank details also makes it easier to discriminate against HAP recipients.

Reasons not to pay it to tenants include similar scams of underpaying or not paying landlords.
So striking a balance is difficult.

It is illegal to withhold rent afaik. If the tennant thinks that there is a problem - they have the right of redress or report problems via the relevant authorities.

In that situation the tennant is getting social payment to pay rent. It is not their private money to hold onto because they feel like it.

steddyeddy · 10-10-2018 11:33am

robman60 wrote: »

Landlords definitely play the poor mouth a bit, but equally non-landlords have an inflated sense of how wealthy landlords become. The landlord takes home about half after tax if paying at the high rate, and has to pay a mortgage out of that. I don't think that's bad though because even if you pay all the rental income on the mortgage you're acquiring a huge asset.
The number of unscrupulous landlords (yes, there are many) means that the law has to be completely in favour of the tenant. This can be an absolute nightmare and I've seen cases where people are paying sizable mortgages but end up without rent for months on end if a tenant won't pay or vacate. Add court costs and legal costs on top and the landlord is thousands out of pocket, all the while knowing there isn't a hope of recouping from the tenant so it's a large bill just to get back what's rightfully your own.
I saw here that a poster said Irish landlords are the worst they've seen. Definitely disagree. In Sydney where I lived for a while both landlords I dealt with were extremely dodgy, would never fix anything, and it cost a king's ransom in rent. The second place I lived a number of tenants had to leave because the landlord had made four bedrooms by putting up partitions in what used to be a sitting room. The council called and it had to be taken down only. This was shocking enough but then one day I returned home and there are five people working in an office which had been put up in its place literally overnight. Was definitely the worst and most precarious living experience I've had.

Landlords aren't all or even mostly wealthy. They have however exemption from renting their own place. That's one of the most expensive elements in Irish society and a huge privilege to have. Furthermore you also get to use your house as an asset as a revenue generator.

seamus · 10-10-2018 11:37am

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should there be mortgage interest relief? I always thought it was a solid piece of advice to never borrow money to make an investment so why encourage it for one-off or small-scale landlords?

To be fair, the mortgage interest relief change is simply normalising the situation for landlords as business owners.

Anyone running any other business can claim 100% tax relief on the interest on their business loan. So in this regard landlords aren't being "rewarded" such much as equalised.

Mind you 66 BRIARFIELD RD was sold twice for below market value, wonder what that's about.

Odd numbers in the register usually mean that VAT was charged on the sale - the register doesn't include the VAT.

If you look at street view, that house was significantly upgraded, so a builder may have bought it, gutted it and then sold it on again, having done enough work to merit the charging of VAT on it.

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-10-2018 11:38am

grahambo wrote: »

I'd agree with you both, but it depends on who's buying.

My point it that it's very unfair. In Kilbarrack alone there's be 14 properties sold well below (1/3) of their value.

21/05/2010 €63,750.00 21 Mount Olive Park, Kilbarrack, Dublin
08/12/2011 €55,000.00 ** 93 Briarfield Road, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5, Dublin 5, Dublin
17/10/2012 €67,975.00 ** 38 Greendale Road, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5
01/05/2012 €88,275.00 ** 9 Briarfield Walk, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5, Dublin
03/10/2013 €59,125.00 ** 64 Mount Olive Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5
17/07/2013 €70,685.00 ** 41 Mount Olive Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5
10/07/2013 €64,790.00 ** 95 Mount Olive Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5
15/07/2014 €92,500.00 ** 66 BRIARFIELD RD, KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
10/04/2015 €116,528.14 ** 48 THORNVILLE AVE, KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
27/10/2015 €21,000.00 ** 15 BRIARFIELD RD KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, DUBLIN, Dublin 5
14/12/2016 €98,413.43 ** 66 BRIARFIELD RD, KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
05/10/2017 €114,000.00 ** 53, SAINT BERACHS PLACE, KILBARRACK DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
06/07/2017 €92,500.00 ** 12 THORNVILLE PARK, KILBARRACK, DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5
29/05/2018 €105,000.00 ** 20, MOUNT OLIVE ROAD, KILBARRACK DUBLIN 5, Dublin 5

14 units gone with no replacement units built. Mind you 66 BRIARFIELD RD was sold twice for below market value, wonder what that's about.

Those are all council estate houses that have been sol to their tenants in the last 8 years.
I'd have bought a house in Thornville if I was able to get it for €100,000. It's not bad around there, but that's not open to me.

You missed my gaffe :pac:

roger_rabbit · 10-10-2018 11:43am

FTA69 wrote: »

There isnt any available. Instead we have vast sums of taxpayer's money being transferred into the hands of private landlords via rent allowance while rent is also inflated massively for everyone else in the cities thus allowing landlords to make a fortune.

Coincidentally the government which allows this to happen is ideologically allergic to state housing despite it being badly needed, and lo and behold, the same government has a massive percentage of people who are also landlords.

plenty of left wing talking points there , il try and address some of them .

first of all the likes of HAP suits both the government ( especially the local authorities ) and the tax payer as number one its a lot cheaper than building houses , HAP is paid to the landlord but he or she ends up paying half of that rent back in income taxes so if say a grand each month is paid out in HAP , the NET cost to the state is only 500 .

secondly and more importantly , the local authorities do not want to be in the business of either spending money maintaining houses or collecting rent , there is a chronic number of local authority tenants who dont pay their rent at all despite the rent being a fraction of what private renters pay , due to politics , its impossible to evict these non payers .

much better to shift the task and risk on to the landlords and as mentioned earlier , half the rent the landlord manages to collect is paid back in income taxes anyway .

you mentioned ideology , the only ideology which prevails right now is that of the left wing media and left wing politicans who oppose the idea of private property earning income full stop , we are swamped with left wing ideology in this country on a daily basis and it has created a truly toxic and false narrative when it comes to the issue of landlords , tenants and property in general .

c montgomery · 10-10-2018 11:46am

Zebra3 wrote: »

If landlords have a problem there’s a simple solution.

Sell up and invest your money elsewhere.

Not interested in your whinging.

If tenants have a problem there's a simple solution.

Save up and buy a house or declare homeless and live in a hotel at states expense.

Not interested in your whinging

Simple statements like the 2 above help nobody and should be avoided.

marieholmfan · 10-10-2018 11:50am

roger_rabbit wrote: »

you mentioned ideology , the only ideology which prevails right now is that of the left wing media and left wing politicans who oppose the idea of private property earning income full stop , we are swamped with left wing ideology in this country on a daily basis and it has created a truly toxic and false narrative when it comes to the issue of landlords , tenants and property in general .

So Fine Gael are a party with a left wing ideology?
Delusional.

The bolded part is simple. Why should parasitic non working passive income be encouraged?

Brian? · 10-10-2018 11:53am

andekwarhola wrote: »

You'll probably disagree, but I do think allowing a proportion of long term residents to buy there does have positive social effects in areas and makes them more stable.

That said, doing it in a vacuum of no meaningful levels of replacement social housing construction (for decades now) is mental, I agree.

Makes complete sense to allow tenants to buy. As long as you building some feckin houses to balance it! You’re bang on. It’s absolutely nuts not to.

Beta Ray Bill · 10-10-2018 12:01pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

The bolded part is simple. Why should parasitic non working passive income be encouraged?

Landlords didn't just get their property for free.
It take generations of hard work and planning to accumulate enough wealth that you can afford live off it.

I myself am in this chain.
My Grandparents had nothing, but they planned their families (well one side did).
This means when they pass on their wealth it will go to just 2 offspring instead of say 6 (which would have been common at the time). My parents in turn both worked and only had 2. I've only had one (and won't be having anymore)
I'll never be a position where I could live off property accumulated through inheritance, but my kids kid might. That is if my kid doesn't **** up the chain and have 4 or 5 kids.

Genuinely I'd love to be able to pass on wealth to my kids kids such to the extent that they could live off it. They'd be able to do something meaningful with their life instead of working on a building site or in a Bank.

Brian? wrote: »

Makes complete sense to allow tenants to buy. As long as you building some feckin houses to balance it! You’re bang on. It’s absolutely nuts not to.

Do you not think it's unfair?

Person A: rents off the council for 15 years at around €500 a month, after the 15 years they are given the option to buy for €60,000
Person B: rents off a private land lord for 15 years at around €1500 a month, after the 15 years if they want to buy the house they have to pay full market price IE €350,000 approx

How is this fair?

Brian? · 10-10-2018 12:07pm

grahambo wrote: »

Landlords didn't just get their property for free.
It take generations of hard work and planning to accumulate enough wealth that you can afford live off it.

I myself am in this chain.
My Grandparents had nothing, but they planned their families (well one side did).
This means when they pass on their wealth it will go to just 2 offspring instead of say 6 (which would have been common at the time). My parents in turn both worked and only had 2. I've only had one (and won't be having anymore)
I'll never be a position where I could live off property accumulated through inheritance, but my kids kid might. That is if my kid doesn't **** up the chain and have 4 or 5 kids.

Genuinely I'd love to be able to pass on wealth to my kids kids such to the extent that they could live off it. They'd be able to do something meaningful with their life instead of working on a building site or in a Bank.

Plenty of people do something meaningful with their lives while paying a mortgage. That’s a weird outlook.

Feisar · 10-10-2018 12:10pm

grahambo wrote: »

Here's the thing NO ONE in the country seems to get...

Q: If you want a Council House or HAP, who do you go to?
A: Your local council.

So why in the Hell are people blaming the likes of FG for housing issues when the reality is they should be blaming their Local Councils?

Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council - FG control this council, there is no housing issues here, it's a wealthy area.
South Dublin County Council - SF control this council, housing is in seriously short supply.
Fingal County Council - SF & FF control this council, another area where housing is in seriously short supply despite that fact there is a huge amount of green space to build on.
Dublin City Council - SF control this council, and there is no doubt that it's this area that has the biggest problem with housing in the country.

So what do we see from the above?

Sinn Fein have Majority in 3 of the 4 councils in the Dublin. The three they control are the most strapped for housing.

Yet it's Sinn Fein that bang on in the Dail about nothing being done.
It's their f**king job to build houses if people want them!!!!
Why are people blaming Fine Gael!?

Because Shinnernomics

Brian? · 10-10-2018 12:22pm

grahambo wrote: »

Landlords didn't just get their property for free.
It take generations of hard work and planning to accumulate enough wealth that you can afford live off it.

I myself am in this chain.
My Grandparents had nothing, but they planned their families (well one side did).
This means when they pass on their wealth it will go to just 2 offspring instead of say 6 (which would have been common at the time). My parents in turn both worked and only had 2. I've only had one (and won't be having anymore)
I'll never be a position where I could live off property accumulated through inheritance, but my kids kid might. That is if my kid doesn't **** up the chain and have 4 or 5 kids.

Genuinely I'd love to be able to pass on wealth to my kids kids such to the extent that they could live off it. They'd be able to do something meaningful with their life instead of working on a building site or in a Bank.

Do you not think it's unfair?

Person A: rents off the council for 15 years at around €500 a month, after the 15 years they are given the option to buy for €60,000
Person B: rents off a private land lord for 15 years at around €1500 a month, after the 15 years if they want to buy the house they have to pay full market price IE €350,000 approx

How is this fair?

Fair? That’s subjective. I don’t really know one way or other.

Does it make sense to allow long term tenants to buy? Subjective again, but I believe it does. It means a more stable community can grow and eliminates a lot of social issues in an area that can come from a constantly changing demographic.

Have you ever lived in a social housing scheme? I grew up in one.

Arghus · 10-10-2018 12:30pm

No, they do not.

Sultan_of_Ping · 10-10-2018 12:31pm

Brian? wrote: »

Fair? That’s subjective. I don’t really know one way or other.

Does it make sense to allow long term tenants to buy? Subjective again, but I believe it does. It means a more stable community can grow and eliminates a lot of social issues in an area that can come from a constantly changing demographic.

Have you ever lived in a social housing scheme? I grew up in one.

It makes sense to sell the asset if it's not performing.

If people are paying rent then the income stream can be re-cycled to generate capital to build more houses.

The problem with social housing is that the discount against the market rent is waaaaaaaay too generous and the amount of tenants not paying is too high.

People get a property that suits their needs and their ability to pay, but then that's never reviewed. There should be more frequent reviews (of need and affordability) and more energetic management of the social housing stock.......so we can have more of it.

Beta Ray Bill · 10-10-2018 12:40pm

Brian? wrote: »

Fair? That’s subjective. I don’t really know one way or other.

It's actually not subjective at all.
Person A gets "something" for X and Person B gets the same or very similar "something" for Y, where Y is far greater than X.

Therefore person B has had to work far harder than A to have the same thing.

You may say that's down to chance, like being born into wealth (You can't choose to be or not to be born into wealth). But this is not the case, because Person A is getting a huge subsidy off a governing body and B isn't. IE someone made a decision to give A money and not B, therefore A has an unfair advantage.

Brian? wrote: »

Does it make sense to allow long term tenants to buy? Subjective again, but I believe it does. It means a more stable community can grow and eliminates a lot of social issues in an area that can come from a constantly changing demographic.

I agree with you to an extent, it depends an awful lot on who is buying.

Brian? wrote: »

Have you ever lived in a social housing scheme? I grew up in one.

I went to Scoil Eoin in Kilbarrack and live right beside a Social estate so yes.

andekwarhola · 10-10-2018 1:18pm

Arghus wrote: »

No, they do not.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people on this very forum that are happily saying small landlords are evil were on here a few years back busy laughing at struggling people that got mortgages during the boom and boasting that they were quids-in and could 'emigrate to barcelona at a minute's notice if they wanted to'

Electric Sheep · 10-10-2018 1:22pm

grahambo wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

It's actually not subjective at all.
Person A gets "something" for X and Person B gets the same or very similar "something" for Y, where Y is far greater than X.

Therefore person B has had to work far harder than A to have the same thing.

You may say that's down to chance, like being born into wealth (You can't choose to be or not to be born into wealth). But this is not the case, because Person A is getting a huge subsidy off a governing body and B isn't. IE someone made a decision to give A money and not B, therefore A has an unfair advantage.

If person B inherited money that was part of Y then he probably did not work harder for it than person A.

Beta Ray Bill · 10-10-2018 1:25pm

Electric Sheep wrote: »

If person B inherited money that was part of Y then he probably did not work harder for it than person A.

But their Parents did and their parents before them etc.
Hence my point about being born into wealth.

Regardless, very few people at the beginning of their working life inherit large amounts of money as it's not until they are approaching the end of their working life that their parents die

nthclare · 10-10-2018 1:25pm

andekwarhola wrote: »

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people on this very forum that are happily saying small landlards are evil were on here a few years back busy laughing at struggling people that got mortgages during the boom and boasting that they were quids-in and could 'emigrate to barcelona at a minute's notice if they wanted to'

I'd agree with you,and they'll be moaning when the arse falls out of it again.

THE ONLY REASON RENT HAS GONE SO HIGH IS FOR LANDLORDS THE RECOUP ALL THE MONEY THEY LOST WHEN THE PRICE OF HOUSE'S DROPPED. WHEN PEOPLE HADN'T A POT TO PISS IN THESE LANDLORDS WERE HAPPY OUT WHEN THEY WERE MAYBE LOOSING 100 EUROS A MONTH.

A lot of people in high places lost a lot of money from 2008....now their little Fiacra Oisine and Isobel will be off to college soon.

Time to get the serf's to pay for snowflakes education....

Tim Robbins · 10-10-2018 1:31pm

Just my own experience. In my twenties, I didn't do a masters, the Oz thing, had a boring job, lived at home, paid my mother rent and then saved up a deposit and bought a property at almost peak prices. It crashed and now has come back up. I lived in it for a while, then moved in with the Mrs and rented it out.

Most of friends are fascinated about this. Exactly how much I bought it for, how much rent I got, how much tax I pay, how much I could get if I sold it etc etc Friends of friends are fascinated. There is this under current that I am some loaded capitalist.

I try to explain, once you pay your tax and expenses you would be lucky to make 1 - 2K a year and that is for probably two weeks work that is distributed over the year. The reaction is usually no way, if you get 1K a month, that's 12K a year. Then I explain the outgoings and the fact it might be empty and that you pay the high rate of tax usually. They don't seem to get the paying tax thing. But most landlords do now. Anyway, they are still fascinated: "But you could sell it and make loads of money" then I explain no I can't blah blah blah...

So I guess there are different types of landlords. I always under charge on the basis that I get good tenants and have issues with just exploitation that the real right wing landlords get engrossed in.

I would be strongly in favour of very strict rent caps as when I hear some of the rents people paying, it just seems grossly unfair.

Keyzer · 10-10-2018 2:02pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It doesn't seem to protect tenants very well either, considering (a) what we're currently paying, and (b) the absence of security of tenure. I live in dread of getting a phone call from my landlord, saying he's returning to Ireland and wants his apartment back. We really need a better system - one that makes it easier to kick someone out for not paying their rent, but also makes it impossible to kick someone out if they are paying their rent, abiding by the tenancy agreement, etc.

Although I understand where your coming from, making it impossible to get your property back if you are renting it out is a ridiculous suggestion.

Church on Tuesday · 10-10-2018 2:06pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

For whatever reason you've been dealing with slumlords. The vast majority of LL's are properly registered and deal with EFT. The alternative is to give up on various tax allowances and run the risk of being reported to the RTB.

The reason is that I needed a place to live.

There are some decent landlords who do things by the book, they are the minority though. That's just the reality.

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-10-2018 2:08pm

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

The reason is that I needed a place to live.

There are some decent landlords who do things by the book, they are the minority though. That's just the reality.

It's simply not though. The majority do things by the book. Granted in a given market segment you may get more chancers.

Edgware · 10-10-2018 2:23pm

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

The reason is that I needed a place to live.

There are some decent landlords who do things by the book, they are the minority though. That's just the reality.

No its not the reality. There are good landlords and good tenants. There are bad landlords and bad tenants. The dirtbirds usually find each other and deserve each other

Tim Robbins · 10-10-2018 2:44pm

People of both a left wing persuasion and right wing persuasion were fascinated about any financial info regarding the apartment.

My bonus for the best job I had one year was 13K which is over 6 times as much as I would make from the apartment in a very good year; but people rarely talk or have any interest in that.

Graces7 · 10-10-2018 2:46pm

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

The reason is that I needed a place to live.

There are some decent landlords who do things by the book, they are the minority though. That's just the reality.

Most of my rural landlords could barely , literally , read and write and had no idea of the rules.

Graces7 · 10-10-2018 2:48pm

Edgware wrote: »

No its not the reality. There are good landlords and good tenants. There are bad landlords and bad tenants. The dirtbirds usually find each other and deserve each other

Patently not true. I did not deserve most of my former landlords and they did not deserve a good tenant like myself

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2018 2:50pm

roger_rabbit wrote: »

the only ideology which prevails right now is that of the left wing media and left wing politicans who oppose the idea of private property earning income full stop , we are swamped with left wing ideology in this country on a daily basis and it has created a truly toxic and false narrative when it comes to the issue of landlords , tenants and property in general .

That's my own ideology in fact, and I have no idea where you're getting the idea that government, whether local or national, agrees with it.

amcalester · 10-10-2018 2:52pm

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

Patently not true. I did not deserve most of my former landlords and they did not deserve a good tenant like myself

You should have properly vetted your potential landlords.

Squatter · 10-10-2018 2:52pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Most of my rural landlords could barely , literally , read and write and had no idea of the rules.

But you lived in the backwoods of the Iveragh peninsuala - a place so remote that your landlord's mongrel sheepdog was also his second cousin!

You could probably add that some of your rural landlords were themselves living in accommodation that, to any reasonably sophisticated tenant, would appear primitive, squalid and antiquated.

Irishcrx · 10-10-2018 2:57pm

I don't think generally people really understand that landlords don't profit a huge amount from a single house tenancy and then have to balance the risk vs reward , one bad tenant + rent arrears , damages and legal costs could well put you off ever doing it again and you have pretty much no legal backing in any sort of speedy manner, one bad tenant and there profits for that year could be in minus.

People spout high rents etc etc , yes and higher rental income = higher tax outgoings.

Example

Rental Income - €2,000 per month
Tax on income (Higher Rate) - €1040
Mortgage Payment - €700

Profit = €260

Trust me , €260 a month isn't a lot for the hassle that comes with being a landlord. Yes certain repairs can be written off as well as other deductions end of year but it isn't the goldmine people assume it to be unless you are already rich and rent a large number of properties and thus can afford the odd loss.

Andrewf20 · 10-10-2018 3:00pm

It's easy to be an expert in hindsight. For those who bought before the bubble, there was no real warning that the world economy would collapse in 2007. And with house prices rising there was a real feeling of missing the boat if you didn't get a property.

So I do sympathise with accidental landlords. Alot would happily get out of the landlord game if they could.

To this day, whether there is another world crash around the corner or not, getting on the property ladder is still like chasing a run away train, whereby you are trying to save money / gain salary faster than house prices increase.

n97 mini · 10-10-2018 3:14pm

Irishcrx wrote: »

Example

Rental Income - €2,000 per month
Tax on income (Higher Rate) - €1040
Mortgage Payment - €700

Profit = €260

As a rule of thumb, the rent has to be double the mortgage repayment to cover the mortgage after tax. If it doesn't the landlord has to cover the shortfall. Looking at property prices in Dublin it's very difficult to actually make this happen if you have a job, so people are less inclined to be landlords. Less landlords = less properties to rent = higher rents. It all comes down to supply and demand.

Ironically if profit on the rental was taxed, as it is in business, and not turnover, it would increase the supply and rents would actually fall.

Floppybits · 10-10-2018 3:26pm

Irishcrx wrote: »

Example

Rental Income - €2,000 per month
Tax on income (Higher Rate) - €1040
Mortgage Payment - €700

Profit = €260

I would argue that your profit is even less than that when you take into account insurance, Management fees (if you have them), sinking fund for repairs and replacements. After those are paid you wont be even seeing much change out of your €260 profit.

Beta Ray Bill · 10-10-2018 3:27pm

n97 mini wrote: »

Ironically if profit on the rental was taxed, as it is in business, and not turnover, it would increase the supply and rents would actually fall.

Yeah but then the bubble wont stop inflating and we don't want that.

See I think you can actually do this if you sent up a Ltd company and transfer the house into the company.

You then only pay 42% tax on the profit you transfer from the company to yourself right? You need to balance the books at the end of the year though so that your Ltd company doesn't make a profit or loss otherwise you're hit with 12.5 corporation tax right?

I think the problem is getting the house out of the Ltd company if you ever wanted to sell it and not be hit with Tax.

Brian? · 10-10-2018 3:29pm

grahambo wrote: »

It's actually not subjective at all.
Person A gets "something" for X and Person B gets the same or very similar "something" for Y, where Y is far greater than X.

Therefore person B has had to work far harder than A to have the same thing.

You may say that's down to chance, like being born into wealth (You can't choose to be or not to be born into wealth). But this is not the case, because Person A is getting a huge subsidy off a governing body and B isn't. IE someone made a decision to give A money and not B, therefore A has an unfair advantage.

Ok. Let’s say I agree it’s not fair, solely on a monetary stand point, what do you propose is done?

I agree with you to an extent, it depends an awful lot on who is buying.

It does. But the people with the means and decent foresight to buy are the ones you want to keep in an area, imo.

I went to Scoil Eoin in Kilbarrack and live right beside a Social estate so yes.

So no? You lived beside and not in a social housing estate? I know I’m being pedantic.

Brian? · 10-10-2018 3:29pm

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

It makes sense to sell the asset if it's not performing.

If people are paying rent then the income stream can be re-cycled to generate capital to build more houses.

The problem with social housing is that the discount against the market rent is waaaaaaaay too generous and the amount of tenants not paying is too high.

People get a property that suits their needs and their ability to pay, but then that's never reviewed. There should be more frequent reviews (of need and affordability) and more energetic management of the social housing stock.......so we can have more of it.

Agreed. 100%.

Beta Ray Bill · 10-10-2018 3:34pm

Brian? wrote: »

Ok. Let’s say I agree it’s not fair, solely on a monetary stand point, what do you propose is done?

Steady on there!!!!
Never said I had an answer!!!!

I suppose in an ideal world it would either be ALL social housing (very few people would own property)
OR
Completely private, and state provides absolutely no assistance.

I'd be leaning towards the 2nd option given this is Ireland.

The "Mix" we have at the moment isn't really great.

Brian? wrote: »

So no? You lived beside and not in a social housing estate? I know I’m being pedantic.

Yes and No, I spent a lot of my youth (up til about 12) hanging around Kilbarrack, as that's where my friends from school were.
That changed to Donaghmede when I went to secondary school

Floppybits · 10-10-2018 3:37pm

grahambo wrote: »

That changed to Donaghmede when I went to secondary school

You went posh then.

cruizer101 · 10-10-2018 3:38pm

Irishcrx wrote: »

Example

Rental Income - €2,000 per month
Tax on income (Higher Rate) - €1040
Mortgage Payment - €700

Profit = €260

I made some corrections

Example

Rental Income - €2,000 per month
Mortgage Payment - €700 (lets say 50/50 interest principle)
Mortgage interest Relief - €262.50 (75% of the interest €350)
Tax on remainder income (Higher Rate) - €903.50
Net Income - €1,096.50

Expenses (Managment etc) - €200
Mortgage Interest - €350
Profit = €546.50

Mortgage Interest is an expense but your full mortgage payment isn't. It is profit that you use to pay back a loan, when that loan is payed back you own that asset so the money isn't gone it is still yours just tied up in an asset.

I'm not under any illusion that there are massive profits to be made (the above actually seems like high rent given the mortgage) and troublesome tenants could easily wipe out profits but it annoys me that paying down the principle on a mortgage is seen as an expense it is just transferring your money slowly into an asset, it is still your it is just tied up in a property.

ImARebel · 10-10-2018 3:51pm

and then there is us playing it by the book only putting it up by the allowed 4%, everyone else is playing dirty kicking out tenants and getting more money on the next one, we're actually 800eur under current market value

that hurts...

yes i know we can lie and kick them out and all of that.. but i (probably stupidly) feel no good will come of that money if we do something like that

so we suck it up and get on with it... bitter pill to swallow at the same time

Laois_Man · 10-10-2018 3:54pm

cruizer101 wrote: »

I made some corrections

Example

Rental Income - €2,000 per month
Mortgage Payment - €700 (lets say 50/50 interest principle)
Mortgage interest Relief - €262.50 (75% of the interest €350)
Tax on remainder income (Higher Rate) - €903.50
Net Income - €1,096.50

Expenses (Managment etc) - €200
Mortgage Interest - €350
Profit = €546.50

Mortgage Interest is an expense but your full mortgage payment isn't. It is profit that you use to pay back a loan, when that loan is payed back you own that asset so the money isn't gone it is still yours just tied up in an asset.

I'm not under any illusion that there are massive profits to be made (the above actually seems like high rent given the mortgage) and troublesome tenants could easily wipe out profits but it annoys me that paying down the principle on a mortgage is seen as an expense it is just transferring your money slowly into an asset, it is still your it is just tied up in a property.

I doubt there's very many Landlords in the country taking in €2,000 per month and paying only €700 mortgage.

Although the money is paying of an asset, in many cases the value of that asset may have been an overall loss/profit/break-even depending on when you purchased the house. So yeah, if you purchased in Dublin in the 90's or inherited, you're laughing. But if you bought in '05-'07 say in the Dublin commuter belt, the rental income for the last ~12 years would not have been paying the mortgage and the value of the property is still at 70%-75% what you paid for it.

steddyeddy · 10-10-2018 4:00pm

grahambo wrote: »

^^^ This ^^^
is ALOT of people.

It's completely unprofitable to Rent a house that has a recently drawn down mortgage on it.

The only way you can make a living on being a Landlord is if you inherit a property.

The other option is Air B&B. Short term lets are 0 hassle and quite profitable.
But the government don't want this now*, and could be planning to make a move against it.
I think it's a bad idea, interfering with the Free Market always makes things worse.

But may I say that's hard but also the case for people in any job. The luxury is that you can potentially be a landlord and work. In other words you can generate money from an asset and then work to generate profit. You'll have the advantageous situation of not paying that much of your wages on your mortgage and/or rent.

The fact that it's hassle isn't indicative that it's not advantageous.

Beta Ray Bill · 10-10-2018 4:07pm

cruizer101 wrote: »

I made some corrections

Example

Rental Income - €2,000 per month
Mortgage Payment - €700 (lets say 50/50 interest principle)
Mortgage interest Relief - €262.50 (75% of the interest €350)
Tax on remainder income (Higher Rate) - €903.50
Net Income - €1,096.50

Expenses (Managment etc) - €200
Mortgage Interest - €350
Profit = €546.50

Mortgage Interest is an expense but your full mortgage payment isn't. It is profit that you use to pay back a loan, when that loan is payed back you own that asset so the money isn't gone it is still yours just tied up in an asset.

I'm not under any illusion that there are massive profits to be made (the above actually seems like high rent given the mortgage) and troublesome tenants could easily wipe out profits but it annoys me that paying down the principle on a mortgage is seen as an expense it is just transferring your money slowly into an asset, it is still your it is just tied up in a property.

Good Post

Bit in Bold got me too, seem very low.
My Mortgage is €1751 per month, I'd need to be renting for near €3k a month to balance out.

EDIT: I think you're numbers are wrong (903/40)*100 = 2257.5 ?

steddyeddy wrote: »

But may I say that's hard but also the case for people in any job. The luxury is that you can potentially be a landlord and work. In other words you can generate money from an asset and then work to generate profit. You'll have the advantageous situation of not paying that much of your wages on your mortgage and/or rent.

The fact that it's hassle isn't indicative that it's not advantageous.

You still have to live somewhere.
Post above show not a huge amount of profit to be made.
You cannot put a price on Hassle.
Hassle = Least desirable thing.

Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

Comments