Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Tenants
Options
Comments
-
What if the tenants say that it wasn't a temporary measure and have proof that they paid the lower amount? The RTB won't back a landlord over a tenant. It's a nightmare for a landlord trying to be nice.
Hence why a *deferral* (e.g. "You have X extra days to get your rent payment for April to me...") is a better option for a landlord than a *discount* ("You only need to pay €Y this month for your rent..."). Rent arrears are rent arrears; being in arrears doesn't change the periodic rent amount owed by the tenant (now or in the future), even if the landlord elects not to take any action for the moment against the tenant due to their arrears. The tenant can't claim "The landlord changed my rent to €0!" just because they're in arrears but no notice was issued, and the landlord still has the right to issue the 14+28-day notices for all outstanding arrears at any time after the current emergency legislation expires, if the tenant tries to take advantage of the landlord's kindness and refuses to pay the full amount owed.
As you noted, though, a rent *discount* could potentially be used against the landlord by a tenant claiming that it was a rent review and was therefore the discounted amount was their permanent new rent.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30614
I'd be inclined to concur with those who are suggesting that a 'deferral' is the way to go- rather than a review or a reduction.
Mortgages for landlords can be deferred (they're not all being deferred- apparently over 20% of requests are being turned down).
When its deferred- it remains due- only the due date is based on other circumstances (such as the lifting of Covid restrictions and/or the employment status of a tenant).
At the end of the day- it is a business transaction between a tenant and a landlord. If you want it to more closely reflect a commercial letting scenario- where a lot of commercial tenants are being granted rent holidays, as opposed to deferrals, you have to accept that the price associated with this- is greater power to the owner of the property to evict delinquent tenants (delinquent through whatever circumstances).
It suits many landlords to give a rent holiday to commercial tenants- because they know they can initiate binding court procedures against their tenant, if the tenant breaks their lease- there is no commensurate process for residential lettings- the legislation and the regulation of the sector is all one sided.0 -
Info from RTB is that any change to rent is a rent review.
Unpaid rent or partial arrears should get a 28 day notice now instead of 14 days.
If a reduction is agreed between tenant & landlord but is less than 12 months since the last review & is a verbal agreement, does that mean it's invalid so wouldn't be upheld by RTB if there was any dispute?
Does it follow that any future review can only be issued 12 months after the invalid one in order to be valid?0 -
overkill602 wrote: »if people get laid off the state is ponying up at the moment but longer term a rent supplement is available under the HAP scheme.
Yeah this has me confused, sounds like they're chancing their arm.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30614
mrslancaster wrote: »Does it follow that any future review can only be issued 12 months after the invalid one in order to be valid?
One would assume so, if you were to follow the letter of the Legislation.
Also- if you agree to a reduction of greater than 4%- a) its in breach of the legislation and b) despite this- it resets the rent to a lower level and you're able to increase it by 4% when you next conduct a future rent review.
Its terribly one sided- heads I win, tails you loose, territory.0 -
Advertisement
-
The entire rental sector needs far more regulation than is currently available.
Deposits should NOT be held by landlords but rather in a trust.
Inspection of each property before and after a "rental agreement" should be conducted by an NCT type body.
Totally independent from but at the cost of the landlord. (They should prove the property is rent-able, this would also allow the RTB to get involved in claims for ware and tear / damage).
RTB needs far more powerful powers to enforce strict adherence to lease agreements (no casual visits by landlords, items to be fixed promptly, unsafe / emergency issues to be dealt with immediately)
RTB can be invited to a property at anytime to witness living conditions.
Landlords that are found to keep deposit illegally should be fined 20% of yearly income for the first offense, 40% for a second and struck off for a third offense.
Free legal aid should be provided to tenants to ensure landlords do not abuse their position.
The powers for RTB as wholly inadequate to deal with the issues that arise this thread is an example of that. Talk to your local politician, push for tenants rights, landlords won't give them to you.
Side note, tax on multiple rental properties / third homes is far too low in this country.
The fact that some people even have third homes during a housing crisis is evidence the tax system is out of touch and far too lenient.
Personally, I don't think "homes" should be treated as investments.0 -
ygolometsipe wrote: »The entire rental sector needs far more regulation than is currently available.
Deposits should NOT be held by landlords but rather in a trust.
Inspection of each property before and after a "rental agreement" should be conducted by an NCT type body.
Totally independent from but at the cost of the landlord. (They should prove the property is rent-able, this would also allow the RTB to get involved in claims for ware and tear / damage).
RTB needs far more powerful powers to enforce strict adherence to lease agreements (no casual visits by landlords, items to be fixed promptly, unsafe / emergency issues to be dealt with immediately)
RTB can be invited to a property at anytime to witness living conditions.
Landlords that are found to keep deposit illegally should be fined 20% of yearly income for the first offense, 40% for a second and struck off for a third offense.
Free legal aid should be provided to tenants to ensure landlords do not abuse their position.
The powers for RTB as wholly inadequate to deal with the issues that arise this thread is an example of that. Talk to your local politician, push for tenants rights, landlords won't give them to you.
Side note, tax on multiple rental properties / third homes is far too low in this country.
The fact that some people even have third homes during a housing crisis is evidence the tax system is out of touch and far too lenient.
Personally, I don't think "homes" should be treated as investments.
Spoken like a true tenant. Yes the laws need strengthening to protect the LL far far too much already in the favour of tenants.
But i do like where you are coming from, when a tenant fails to pay rent the LL should have legal powers to seize the car or any other items of value to resell and recoup any loses incurred by the LL.0 -
ygolometsipe wrote: »The entire rental sector needs far more regulation than is currently available.
Deposits should NOT be held by landlords but rather in a trust.
Inspection of each property before and after a "rental agreement" should be conducted by an NCT type body.
Totally independent from but at the cost of the landlord. (They should prove the property is rent-able, this would also allow the RTB to get involved in claims for ware and tear / damage).
RTB needs far more powerful powers to enforce strict adherence to lease agreements (no casual visits by landlords, items to be fixed promptly, unsafe / emergency issues to be dealt with immediately)
RTB can be invited to a property at anytime to witness living conditions.
Landlords that are found to keep deposit illegally should be fined 20% of yearly income for the first offense, 40% for a second and struck off for a third offense.
Free legal aid should be provided to tenants to ensure landlords do not abuse their position.
The powers for RTB as wholly inadequate to deal with the issues that arise this thread is an example of that. Talk to your local politician, push for tenants rights, landlords won't give them to you.
Side note, tax on multiple rental properties / third homes is far too low in this country.
The fact that some people even have third homes during a housing crisis is evidence the tax system is out of touch and far too lenient.
Personally, I don't think "homes" should be treated as investments.
"Free" legal aid i.e. paid for by the taxpayer
Some people spend their money by buying fancy cars, holidays, alcohol etc. Other people buy a second property as a long term pension support.
Some people want to be as independent as possible, others want to scrounge off society0 -
ygolometsipe wrote: »snip.............
Totally independent from but at the cost of the landlord. (They should prove the property is rent-able, this would also allow the RTB to get involved in claims for ware and tear / damage).
..............snip.
You do realise that any cost to the landlord invariably ends up as a cost to the tenant.0 -
10pennymixup wrote: »You do realise that any cost to the landlord invariably ends up as a cost to the tenant.
Not really, because rent is controlled.
So upping the costs for a landlord does not up the costs for a tenant.
In a normal business relationship thats how it would work alright.
So a landlord will take it as long as they are able and then sell up as we have been seeing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not really, because rent is controlled.
So upping the costs for a landlord does not up the costs for a tenant.
Blanket rent controls are temporary. Pre Covid not everywhere was an RPZ, and that RPZ legislation was supposed to be temporary.
Rents on new properties are not rent controlled, and those rents would include any costs to the LL.
Upping costs to a point where renting out a property is not cost effective or cost effective enough for the LL, leads to less supply. Which means the tenant gets to live with Mammy a bit longer, another but non monetary cost.0 -
ygolometsipe wrote: »The entire rental sector needs far more regulation than is currently available.
Deposits should NOT be held by landlords but rather in a trust.
Inspection of each property before and after a "rental agreement" should be conducted by an NCT type body.
Totally independent from but at the cost of the landlord. (They should prove the property is rent-able, this would also allow the RTB to get involved in claims for ware and tear / damage).
RTB needs far more powerful powers to enforce strict adherence to lease agreements (no casual visits by landlords, items to be fixed promptly, unsafe / emergency issues to be dealt with immediately)
RTB can be invited to a property at anytime to witness living conditions.
Landlords that are found to keep deposit illegally should be fined 20% of yearly income for the first offense, 40% for a second and struck off for a third offense.
Free legal aid should be provided to tenants to ensure landlords do not abuse their position.
The powers for RTB as wholly inadequate to deal with the issues that arise this thread is an example of that. Talk to your local politician, push for tenants rights, landlords won't give them to you.
Side note, tax on multiple rental properties / third homes is far too low in this country.
The fact that some people even have third homes during a housing crisis is evidence the tax system is out of touch and far too lenient.
Personally, I don't think "homes" should be treated as investments.
I see we have a fully paid up member of the Eoin O' Broin fan club here.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30614
ygolometsipe wrote: »The entire rental sector needs far more regulation than is currently available.
Compared with other countries in the EU and Switzerland, Ireland's residential property market is very possibly the most regulated there is. I'm not sure if you're aware of just how strictly the Irish rental sector is regulated. The prevailing argument is additional regulation is needed to protect small landlords from tenants who abuse the rental sector- not vice versa.ygolometsipe wrote: »Deposits should NOT be held by landlords but rather in a trust.
The RTB did a study on this- focusing on Scotland a some other nearby markets. They found that rather surprisingly there were a higher number of deposits not returned (or claimed) by tenants under escrow type schemes- than before the escrow schemes were initiated. There was £36m in unclaimed tenant deposits moved to the central exchequer in the UK in January 2020 alone.
There is a valid argument that deposits be held by an independent authority. There is also a valid argument that deposits should be on a level akin to in other countries (that is 2-3 months rent as a deposit) and also that properties should be let fully unfurnished. These are all things that should be explored.ygolometsipe wrote: »Inspection of each property before and after a "rental agreement" should be conducted by an NCT type body.
As happens in other countries. No reason it shouldn't happen here- however, it should be free (funded by the RTB levy on landlords) unless there are issues found at the end of a tenancy- in which case, as the guilty party, the tenant should pay.ygolometsipe wrote: »Totally independent from but at the cost of the landlord. (They should prove the property is rent-able, this would also allow the RTB to get involved in claims for ware and tear / damage).
I agree- the landlord pays- *unless* there is damage above and beyond normal wear and tear- in which case the tenant is liable to pay both for the inspection, and have their deposit purloined to make good the damage noted by the independent inspector.ygolometsipe wrote: »RTB needs far more powerful powers to enforce strict adherence to lease agreements (no casual visits by landlords, items to be fixed promptly, unsafe / emergency issues to be dealt with immediately)
Lease agreement are binding on both parties- and there are prescribed mechanisms under the legislation for either landlords or tenants to register any breach of obligations with the RTB. You can't blame the RTB if people decide not to bother with them. They have the power- and they do initiate thousands of cases annually.ygolometsipe wrote: »RTB can be invited to a property at anytime to witness living conditions.
There are already prescribed mechanisms to inspect private rental properties- I'm not sure why you don't want them used? Every local authority has a housing officer tasked with, among other things, ensuring compliance with standards. The RTB liaise with local authorities (as it stands) who ensure compliance. They don't personally go and inspect properties.ygolometsipe wrote: »Landlords that are found to keep deposit illegally should be fined 20% of yearly income for the first offense, 40% for a second and struck off for a third offense.
You seem to have the idea that the unfair retention of deposits is the no. 1 issue in the sector. In fact- the no. 1 issue reported (by anyone) to the RTB is by landlords reporting tenants for non payment of rent- and the second highest ranked issue- is also by landlords, where tenants overhold (either continuing to pay rent, or not).
Of the cases of unfair deposit retention reported to the RTB by tenants- over a third of the complaints are found wholly in favour of the landlord. Aka- the cases/claims of >1/3 of cases of unfair retention of deposits fail- as they are adjudicated to be wholly justified.ygolometsipe wrote: »Free legal aid should be provided to tenants to ensure landlords do not abuse their position.
Tenants are already represented by a variety of state funded organisations- notably Threshold. Threshold were rightly admonished for bizarre and often illegal advice to tenants- which often resulted in spurious cases being lodged with the RTB- which wasted time and money for everyone.
Tenants have ample protection under the law- however the fact of the matter is landlords, even when they bring cases to the RTB and win substantial sums from tenants for damage to property or non-payment of rent- seldom see a penny.
There should be additional mechanisms in place to ensure both landlords and tenants are held to the terms of the act- and where breaches occur- there has to be valid mechanisms that can be used to chase the offending party. No-one should be allowed get away Scott free.ygolometsipe wrote: »The powers for RTB as wholly inadequate to deal with the issues that arise this thread is an example of that. Talk to your local politician, push for tenants rights, landlords won't give them to you.
The can make legally binding rulings on either party- and do. However, while a landlord is viewed as having an asset that can be leveraged- tenants aren't- so landlords end up with fines being paid- tenants (even high profile tenants such as a recent case involving a high court judge) not.
There has to be fairness- the law should not favour one party over the other- both should be forced to adhere to their legislative requirements- without exception.ygolometsipe wrote: »Side note, tax on multiple rental properties / third homes is far too low in this country.
The fact that some people even have third homes during a housing crisis is evidence the tax system is out of touch and far too lenient.
Personally, I don't think "homes" should be treated as investments.
If there is no ability to treat homes as investments- then people won't invest in them- and the supply of rental stock will fall. It (the supply of rental stock) is falling- and has been falling in absolute numbers, for the last 3-4 years. This has been highlighted in information notes provided to the Minister by the RTB- and has been one of the factors why the increasingly repressive regulatory regime for landlords hasn't been even worse.
In my opinion once people have earned money, declared it appropriately, paid any tax due on it- and have the remainder to do with as they will- I don't see why they shouldn't buy whatever they wish- for whatever purpose.
One massive issue I have with the tax treatment of rental income- is the manner in which the cost of debt (that is the interest on money borrowed to purchase the property) is allowable as a cost. This creates a perverse incentive to load up on debt- as you can offset interest against your taxable income. That is nuts.
Note- this is how REITs and others function- they borrow widely- because its an allowable cost- and then they stiff the exchequer. Its entirely legal daylight robbery.........
One example of this that I find particularly galling- we sold the National Lottery for €405 million in 2013 to a consortium headed by the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. We were told the €405 million was to pay for the new National Children's Hospital (by Brendan Howlin). Meanwhile the €405 million was lent by the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund as cash to the consortium at 11.5% interest- so as to guarantee that the entity setup to run the lottery wouldn't produce taxable profits- aka any money generated would be offshored to Canada. And then they flittered the €405 million- so now we don't own the lottery any longer, its not paying for the children's hospital- and the annual corporation tax it was paying has been nullified by loading up the Irish entity with debt.
Debt- in my mind is the ultimate evil- and I do not think that any entity, of any nature, should be allowed account for the cost of debt against taxable income.
Let REITs and/or others let residential property- but treat them on a similar basis and make sure they all pay a minimum level of tax.
If you want to deal with residential property letting separate to any other asset type- fine- do it- I'd suggest a flatrate tax on gross rental income as the manner it should be dealt with- and the REITs and everyone else pays at the same level.
Even after studying economics for 4 years- I still don't understand why anyone is allowed to account for the cost of debt against taxable income- I understand the theory, sure- I don't understand how/why its considered to be acceptable behaviour.
If you borrow money- there should be an impetus on you to repay that debt- and a quantifiable cost associated with not doing so. The current situation- of perverse incentives to maximise debt- are unforgivable.0 -
ygolometsipe wrote: »The entire rental sector needs far more regulation than is currently available.
Deposits should NOT be held by landlords but rather in a trust.
Inspection of each property before and after a "rental agreement" should be conducted by an NCT type body.
Totally independent from but at the cost of the landlord. (They should prove the property is rent-able, this would also allow the RTB to get involved in claims for ware and tear / damage).
RTB needs far more powerful powers to enforce strict adherence to lease agreements (no casual visits by landlords, items to be fixed promptly, unsafe / emergency issues to be dealt with immediately)
RTB can be invited to a property at anytime to witness living conditions.
Landlords that are found to keep deposit illegally should be fined 20% of yearly income for the first offense, 40% for a second and struck off for a third offense.
Free legal aid should be provided to tenants to ensure landlords do not abuse their position.
The powers for RTB as wholly inadequate to deal with the issues that arise this thread is an example of that. Talk to your local politician, push for tenants rights, landlords won't give them to you.
Side note, tax on multiple rental properties / third homes is far too low in this country.
The fact that some people even have third homes during a housing crisis is evidence the tax system is out of touch and far too lenient.
Personally, I don't think "homes" should be treated as investments.
Your plans would probably half the rental stock in Dublin and what remains would cost 50% more just to break even. If there was ever a way to make the rental crisis worse, this was it.0 -
ygolometsipe wrote: »The entire rental sector needs far more regulation than is currently available.
Deposits should NOT be held by landlords but rather in a trust.
Inspection of each property before and after a "rental agreement" should be conducted by an NCT type body.
Totally independent from but at the cost of the landlord. (They should prove the property is rent-able, this would also allow the RTB to get involved in claims for ware and tear / damage).
RTB needs far more powerful powers to enforce strict adherence to lease agreements (no casual visits by landlords, items to be fixed promptly, unsafe / emergency issues to be dealt with immediately)
RTB can be invited to a property at anytime to witness living conditions.
Landlords that are found to keep deposit illegally should be fined 20% of yearly income for the first offense, 40% for a second and struck off for a third offense.
Free legal aid should be provided to tenants to ensure landlords do not abuse their position.
The powers for RTB as wholly inadequate to deal with the issues that arise this thread is an example of that. Talk to your local politician, push for tenants rights, landlords won't give them to you.
Side note, tax on multiple rental properties / third homes is far too low in this country.
The fact that some people even have third homes during a housing crisis is evidence the tax system is out of touch and far too lenient.
Personally, I don't think "homes" should be treated as investments.
This kind of one sided arguement for the tenant only makes it worse for everyone. Who is providing the majority if the rented accommodation in ireland ? Its not the big REIT s it's the 1 2 3 property landlords. So accommodation shouldn't be treated as an investment. That's capitalism. So what system are you gunning for ? And who's going to pay for it ?0 -
handlemaster wrote: »...Who is providing the majority if the rented accommodation in ireland ? Its not the big REIT s it's the 1 2 3 property landlords. So accommodation shouldn't be treated as an investment. That's capitalism. So what system are you gunning for ? And who's going to pay for it ?
This is where we fundamentally disagree. I vew landlords as middlemen that unethically "take a cut". Landlords put themselves between the bank and the home owner buy offering the bank more money and then leaving the "tenant" no option but to pay the middle-man.
If the "asset"(aka home) was not generating "yield" the property would have a depreciating value (the materials degrade over time, property tax e.t.c) sure the overall value can go up but that's a result of increased yield which is due to a lack of supply because guess who buys all the supply!!! A landlord would then have little to no use for it, you can't live in both at the same time.
Most would sell it then someone else could own a home.
You can sell it to yourself they benefit society but that's just nonsense. Landlords make nothing, generate no product, a lot of landlords don't even get involved in the up keep, they use a third party. Imagine a society were we all get wealthy for doing nothing? Does that seem right to you?
Landlords are just unethical middle men/women.0 -
ygolometsipe wrote: »This is where we fundamentally disagree. I vew landlords as middlemen that unethically "take a cut". Landlords put themselves between the bank and the home owner buy offering the bank more money and then leaving the "tenant" no option but to pay the middle-man.
If the "asset"(aka home) was not generating "yield" the property would have a depreciating value (the materials degrade over time, property tax e.t.c) sure the overall value can go up but that's a result of increased yield which is due to a lack of supply because guess who buys all the supply!!! A landlord would then have little to no use for it, you can't live in both at the same time.
Most would sell it then someone else could own a home.
You can sell it to yourself they benefit society but that's just nonsense. Landlords make nothing, generate no product, a lot of landlords don't even get involved in the up keep, they use a third party. Imagine a society were we all get wealthy for doing nothing? Does that seem right to you?
Landlords are just unethical middle men/women.
Russia and China would welcome you with open arms. But seriously how deluded you must be with western society as a whole.
Do you buy your milk directly from the cow? Do you get your eggs from the chicken?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30614
ygolometsipe - landlords provide a service, the same as any other service provider.
You pay for the service they are providing.
The provision of this service is exceptionally highly regulated, predominantly in the tenant's favour.
This forum does not represent the interests of any one group exclusively- all we do is ask that posters be cognisant of the fact that they will encounter people with different viewpoints here- and even if you hold a diametrically opposed view, you should remain civil towards one another.
People naturally promote their own interests, its part of being human, it doesn't mean that someone else's viewpoint is any more or less valid than yours.
The other thing about many posters in this forum- both tenants and landlords, is they are often very familiar with the legislation, with dealing with the RTB, Housing Associations, Local Authority Housing Officers (and many many others). Lots of them have had bad experiences with landlords, or with tenants- but most try not to let one bad experience colour their expectations of all landlords or tenants- no matter what sector you look at you'll find both good and bad agents.
There isn't a right and a wrong way to do things- unfortunately you will encounter situations that force people to take a 'third way' to come up with solutions that may be unique to particular situations or circumstances.
I don't think anyone will argue that the private sector have no business being involved in the provision of social housing to those who are incapable of housing themselves (for whatever reason). The unfortunate fact of the matter is- government policy has been to abdicate its responsibilities to the private sector. The private sector does not want this responsibility- they'd be just as happy for the government (and local authorities) to go on a house building spree and look after those who can't (or don't want to) rent privately.
However- it suits to have a bogeyman to cast blame at- so all the ills of the sector can be heaped at the feet of 'unethical' or 'greedy' landlords.
I spent my 14 Euro on Eoin O'Broin's book- to see what his thoughts were, and while I agreed with his history lesson, I disagreed with many of his findings- but I did agree with some of them.
The current situation does not suit either tenants or landlords- it is not fit for purpose. Landlords would love to have the various residential housing welfare schemes abolished, and local authorities house tenants in local authority property. Tenants would love not to have to deal with landlords.
The fact of the matter is- there will always be a cohort of people out there who either can't buy or don't want buy property (for whatever reason). It has never been the case that everyone who wanted to buy could afford to buy- that simply has not been the case.
Landlords are not evil. Tenants are not evil. The government is not evil. The situation we find ourselves in is far from ideal- but flailing out at landlords (or anyone else) because you're not happy with the situation is entirely counterproductive.0 -
ygolometsipe wrote: »This is where we fundamentally disagree. I vew landlords as middlemen that unethically "take a cut". Landlords put themselves between the bank and the home owner buy offering the bank more money and then leaving the "tenant" no option but to pay the middle-man.
If the "asset"(aka home) was not generating "yield" the property would have a depreciating value (the materials degrade over time, property tax e.t.c) sure the overall value can go up but that's a result of increased yield which is due to a lack of supply because guess who buys all the supply!!! A landlord would then have little to no use for it, you can't live in both at the same time.
Most would sell it then someone else could own a home.
You can sell it to yourself they benefit society but that's just nonsense. Landlords make nothing, generate no product, a lot of landlords don't even get involved in the up keep, they use a third party. Imagine a society were we all get wealthy for doing nothing? Does that seem right to you?
Landlords are just unethical middle men/women.
Your view has no relevance in reality. Paint me the picture without landlords. Who provides the homes to people who do ot want to buy?
Should we all buy our food from the farmer directly? What your saying doesn't make any sence.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30614
handlemaster wrote: »Your view has now relevance in reality. Paint me the picture without landlords. Who provides the homes to people who do ot want to buy?
I wonder how good Eoin O'Broin is at bricklaying. I know I'd not trust any wall I built not to fall over.......... Eoin O'Broin is not going to personally build (anything) and SF can't force anyone else to either. The only way to build vast numbers of properties to hand out like smarties- is to build things that are so cheap to build, that realistically no-one is going to want.
The biggest issue being highlighted by developers right now- is not access to finance (as it was for some years after the last crisis)- its the actual cost of building units. We need to get proper smacht on our costs- as the current all-singing all-dancing units we're building- simply are too highly spec'ed for a majority of those who would like to buy.0 -
The triple constraint of property development. It is possible to:
- Produce something quickly and of high quality but that will be costly. Too costly for most.
- Produce something at low cost and high quality, but that will take time. Too lengthy for most.
- Produce something quickly and cheaply but that will not be of high quality. Which is futile for all.
To produce something that is quick, high quality and low cost (as per SF) is pure la la land territory.0 - Produce something quickly and of high quality but that will be costly. Too costly for most.
-
The_Conductor wrote: »....
The biggest issue being highlighted by developers right now- is not access to finance (as it was for some years after the last crisis)- its the actual cost of building units. We need to get proper smacht on our costs- as the current all-singing all-dancing units we're building- simply are too highly spec'ed for a majority of those who would like to buy.
Most people are missing this.
We could build simpler less complex houses, where they have one bathroom, simple layouts, less rooms more open plan, and plain features. If its truly a crisis, like in the late 40's when they built emergency housing. Its very similar to the modern movements of minimalist housing, micro housing, or living in a van etc., as a lifestyle choice.
But we choosing to keep the status quo and build unaffordable housing.0 -
Housing lasts a long time. The houses built in the 30s, 40s, and 50,s now require expensive retrofits and reworking. Dropping standards to get houses up will casue trouble down the line. Apartment blocks built within the last 25 years have terrible problems which will be around for decades to come.0
-
I would personally welcome an independent body holding onto the deposit in an escrow account. Would be the end of the day's of 'oh use the deposit as my last month's rent'.0
-
Covidhaveago wrote: »I would personally welcome an independent body holding onto the deposit in an escrow account. Would be the end of the day's of 'oh use the deposit as my last month's rent'.
Great idea until it takes weeks to get a deposit back. No more using your deposit back from one place to act as the deposit for the next one.0 -
Covidhaveago wrote: »I would personally welcome an independent body holding onto the deposit in an escrow account. Would be the end of the day's of 'oh use the deposit as my last month's rent'.
LL would welcome it also. As using at last months rent is against the rules and also stiffs the LL for any thing above normal wear and tear that is left behind.Claw Hammer wrote: »Great idea until it takes weeks to get a deposit back. No more using your deposit back from one place to act as the deposit for the next one.
You wouldn't need it bask the escrow would just be transferred unless you run out on a repairs or the last months rent.0 -
Claw Hammer wrote: »Housing lasts a long time. The houses built in the 30s, 40s, and 50,s now require expensive retrofits and reworking. Dropping standards to get houses up will casue trouble down the line. Apartment blocks built within the last 25 years have terrible problems which will be around for decades to come.
Seriously?
Thats because they are 60-90yrs old. They were often built to highest standard of their day.
But you are confusing making buildings less complex with lower standards. A simpler building is cheaper, because its simple, not because its a low standard.0 -
You wouldn't need it bask the escrow would just be transferred unless you run out on a repairs or the last months rent.
The escrow is going to have to check with the landlord. How long will that take? What if the landlord raises complaints. How long will it take to resolve the complaints?0 -
Advertisement
-
Claw Hammer wrote: »The escrow is going to have to check with the landlord. How long will that take? What if the landlord raises complaints. How long will it take to resolve the complaints?
Everyone would have to stop taking the proverbial.
The whole rental market needs proper overhaul so that tenants and LL have to improve their game and act like adults.
I like the way in other countries you hand back the property unfurnished and newly painted to a good standard. So hidden damage and garbage isn't left behind.0
Advertisement