People need to realise that renting a property is a business decision like any other

Darlughda

This thread title is a quote from McCarrick, one of the mods on this forum.

I have problems with this view. Particularly when it comes to RA tenants.

A property is not some kind of commodity like gold or jewellery.

A property depends on living, breathing humans who need a home.

Peoples' welfare are at stake here, if a landlord acts purely for the profit of money, at disregard to the tenant and landlords stand to lose out on potentially excellent longterm tenants if they continue with this ridiculous policy of discriminating against RA tenants.

Now, we all have stories of bad landlords, and bad tenants, both RA and non RA, but is it possible to find some kind of median area where good landlords can be matched up with good tenants?

It would be great if such a database existed!

Nonetheless, the idea of being a landlord being primarily a business decision is one that makes me :eek:.
This suggests a greedy individual who gives not a rat's ass about an individual only the bottom line on the return of their investments.

How in this day and age the practice of landlords being able to consider their properties in the 19th century practice as profit making enterprises is allowed to continue, I don't know-especially considering the suffering endured by most of our ancestors in this country under such norms.

the_syco

Darlughda wrote: »

How in this day and age the practice of landlords being able to consider their properties in the 19th century practice as profit making enterprises is allowed to continue

So should it be
A) a profit making enterprise
a loss making enterprise
C) a non-profit enterprise

"A" will mean he continues to be a landlord, and fix any problems that arise.
"B" will mean that he has to pay from his own pocket, and ignore the tenant should something break
"C" will not exist. No-one rents a house without hoping it generates income.

So, what exactly do you think that renting a house should be? Your post is illogical, and smells of communism :pac:

jimmycrackcorm

What other reason do people rent properties unless it is to make a profit?

Darlughda

Your post is illogical, and smells of communism :pac:

The McCarthy administration called, syco hun, they want you back to the 1950's.

While you are there, do tell that nice Mr. Miller that the Salem play will be the one he is really remembered for.

Anyway, I am not playing your multiple choice game. You can read. Therefore you can see what I am saying.:pac:

Darlughda

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What other reason do people rent properties unless it is to make a profit?

To have a place to live in. A shelter, home. A basic fundamental need and right. People do not rent to seek a profit.

silja

Darlughda wrote: »

To have a place to live in. A shelter, home. A basic fundamental need and right. People do not rent to seek a profit.

The landlord doesn't live there... or are you proposing that there should be no landlords, and everyone either lives at home or owns their own house?

Darlughda

silja wrote: »

The landlord doesn't live there... or are you proposing that there should be no landlords, and everyone either lives at home or owns their own house?

Obviously not.

athtrasna

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What other reason do people rent properties unless it is to make a profit?

How about to keep their property in the hope of one day being able to move back into it themselves, while in the meantime having to move back in with their parents/houseshare/bedsit. Or in the hope of being able to sell without massive negative equity in the future?

The landlords of the dodgy pre'63 conversions and a lot of the older accommodation tend to be people who are in it purely for the money. Landlords of newer accommodation tend to be people who got caught in the property bubble and paid way too much for average/small properties, and are left with properties they can't afford to live in, or can't fit in (eg owners of 1 bed apartments who are now married with kids).

People on RA are not the only people hurting. All the advice to young people in the last decade was to buy, get your foot on the property ladder and trade up. I myself got advice from a major financial institution in 2000 not to buy til 2004 as the market will have calmed down and there will be bargains. Glad I didn't take that advice!

Balmed Out

Not the primary reason?????? What other reason?

Would you take out and struggle with a mortgage so as to provide those (uptill said mortgage) needier then you with rent free accomodation?


As with everything a landlord should make sure the product is fit for purpose and not a slum but please leave the idealistic left wing nonsense back in primary school where it belongs.

Zulu

Perhaps, for those, who believe that anyone who owns a property is landed gentry.

The reality of the matter is that landlords have mortgages to pay.

MagicMarker

Unless the landlord is operating a homeless shelter, why else would they rent a property?

trad

A bit like farmers.

Faolchu

Darlughda wrote: »

How in this day and age the practice of landlords being able to consider their properties in the 19th century practice as profit making enterprises is allowed to continue, .

in my view there are three catagories of landlord:
A) the professional one i.e has multiple properties in a portfolio that they rent out. it is a business and they like all business people are in it for one reason. profit.

b) the chancer, someone that had a little extra cash or between them and their partner had two homes, live in one and decided to rent the other for surplus income or in the hope they could sell it on later for a profit. either way the motivation is profit

C) the desperate i.e. someone that cant afford their mortgage so have moved home and rent out the property they lived in in an effort to pay their debt. in this case they are in the business for one reason only. debt

in both cases the primary goal is to maximase the money coming in to increasde profit or reduce debt. neither catagory is in it out of some sense of charity, if they were they wouldnt charge rent, they'd leave the doors open and let anyone stay there that needed a roof over their head.

now in all the above groups you have good and bad, but then you have good and bad car sales men, doctors, street sweepers, taxi driver etc.

to somewhat back up McCarricks point, i think in the past it was a business decision, today though for some its the only option they have facing mounting debt etc. they move back home, rent the place out to try pay the mortgage and hoepe in a year or two to move back in. But I think these people need to realise it is a business and need to consider how they act to ensure they get a return from their investment. ie take care of maintenance issues, issue reciepts for rent, dont spend the security deposit as if it was your money, dont hold on to the security deposit for silly reasons, register with the PRTB and pay income tax etc

to sum up. OP if your looking at it from the POV of a tenant then there is a certain logic to what you say. yes some landlords are potentially cutting themselves off from a decent no trouble tenant by excluding RA tenants. however you may find that these particular landlords may be desperate and havent registered for tax on the rental income, they may also not have informed their mortgage lender to inform them it is no longer the principle residence but a rented property etc.
However as the topic is from the POV of the landlord IMO then i can only conclude that yourpoint is out there like pluto. it makes no logical sense to me and i'm neither a landlord or a tenant

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...
Nonetheless, the idea of being a landlord being primarily a business decision is one that makes me :eek:. ...

Is there any other reason to be a landlord?

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...Peoples' welfare are at stake here, if a landlord acts purely for the profit of money, at disregard to the tenant and landlords stand to lose out on potentially excellent longterm tenants if they continue with this ridiculous policy of discriminating against RA tenants....

Peoples welfare is the job of the state not the LL.

The state set up the RA and PRTB and both are seriously flawed for the LL. Thats where the problem lies, not with the Landlord. The state is expecting the LL to loan the state and the tenant money while the state gets up to speed. Paying in arrears, immediately puts the LL at a loss.

There is no security with a RA tenant. If they don't pay their rent, the state doesn't cover the LL loses. Indeed, there's nothing to stop a tenant who is kicked off RA, to get it again in another region. There is no mechanism to stop this AFAIK.

A LL should insisted on a deposit of 2 months rent to cover payment one month in arrears, and if there's any delay in payment from the state, the tenant must pay this themselves. If there's any delay in paying the rent, the LL should start official procedure (letters) immediately. Because the process is ridiculously long.

You don't seem to have any awareness of any of these issues. You seem to be stuck in ancient history.

There's also an assumption here that the LL has excess money to enable them to provide this "loan" or can afford to cover these losses. The truth is many simply don''t and are probably even deeper in debt/trouble than the tenant. For sure there are good and bad LL's just as there are good and bad Tenants.

Diarmuid

Darlughda wrote: »

Nonetheless, the idea of being a landlord being primarily a business decision is one that makes me :eek:.
This suggests a greedy individual who gives not a rat's ass about an individual only the bottom line on the return of their investments.

That's a logical fallacy.

hardCopy

This thread makes my brain hurt.

Why would any sane individual go through all the hassle of buying a property, furnishing it, advertising it, showing it, signing contracts and collecting rent, maintaining it and cleaning it if not to make a profit?

For the craic?

Darlughda

Well, you all seem determined to deliberately misunderstand me. Instead of throwing silly insults at me why not read my post properly.

My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to make a profit from renting out property, but a landlord is dealing with people here. Therefore, an interest in housing for a start, a knowledge of the law, being good at dealing with people are other reasons why a landlord could be interested in renting out a property.

A property should be decent, and furnished appropriately-(not with the current vogue for decrepit nursing home chic).
'Fit for purpose'- what about well maintained, and somewhere the landlord would live themselves?

If a landlord wants a deposit and months rent in advance, fine as long as that landlord ensures the tenant has their deposit back in time for them to secure their next accomodation.

Nobody is talking about rent-free accomodation. But taking advantage of people at the bottom end of the market by squeezing the last penny out of them for a tiny bedsit is just sheer greed, not idealistic left wing nonsense

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...
My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to make a profit from renting out property, but a landlord is dealing with people here. Therefore, an interest in housing for a start, a knowledge of the law, being good at dealing with people are other reasons why a landlord could be interested in renting out a property....

If you don't generate income from it, how does the LL pay for the costs of this "hobby".

RedXIV

Darlughda wrote: »

My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

Your problem is with this statement. Landlords are there to make money, nobody provides lodgings because they "get on with people", it is about making an income from a business.

I THINK I understand the point you're trying to make which is IRRESPONSIBLE landlords are a bad thing, as in ones that will screw people over to make a profit, however, ALL landlords are in the game to make money, just some are responsible and some are not

Snakeblood

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, you all seem determined to deliberately misunderstand me. Instead of throwing silly insults at me why not read my post properly.

My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to make a profit from renting out property, but a landlord is dealing with people here. Therefore, an interest in housing for a start, a knowledge of the law, being good at dealing with people are other reasons why a landlord could be interested in renting out a property.

A property should be decent, and furnished appropriately-(not with the current vogue for decrepit nursing home chic).
'Fit for purpose'- what about well maintained, and somewhere the landlord would live themselves?

If a landlord wants a deposit and months rent in advance, fine as long as that landlord ensures the tenant has their deposit back in time for them to secure their next accomodation.

Nobody is talking about rent-free accomodation. But taking advantage of people at the bottom end of the market by squeezing the last penny out of them for a tiny bedsit is just sheer greed, not idealistic left wing nonsense

That sort of stuff needs to be legislated for, to some extent, and then the onus is on the renter to look for those things. I agree that many landlords suck, but with the volume of property on the market, it's possible for Renters to demand changes to the accommodation, it's not all on the landlord to provide awesome accommodation. Why should they if Renters are satisfied with less?

Ortiz

As a landlord you can do whatever the hell you like - as long as it's not breaking the law.

Design a bedsit with a dirty brown flowery carpet, a sea shell 50 year old 3 piece suite, one single bed and no kitchen if you like. If a tenant is willing to take it in that state good enough for em!

Darlughda it's ALL about making money. Take what you can get and as long as you're adhering to the law you can do what you like

Darlughda

Ortiz wrote: »

As a landlord you can do whatever the hell you like - as long as it's not breaking the law.

Design a bedsit with a dirty brown flowery carpet, a sea shell 50 year old 3 piece suite, one single bed and no kitchen if you like. If a tenant is willing to take it in that state good enough for em!

Darlughda it's ALL about making money. Take what you can get and as long as you're adhering to the law you can do what you like

This.
This kind of odious attitude is what I am talking about.

I am not talking about people living rent free or anything like that, nor did I say that making a profit is inherently wrong.

What is wrong are people who are landlords and have this kind of attitude. 'Screw- 'em- and- make as- much- money- as- I- want -even- if- I- wouldn't- live- in -that- rathole in- a- fit' kind of mentality.

Ortiz, you are the kind of landlord decent tenants should be warned about.

MagicMarker

Some landlords are ****, some are good.

This logic applies to everything in the universe, now if you don't mind I'm off to start a thread on why all oranges should be sweet.

BostonB

Its the Ryan Air of Landlords.

At the end of the day the LL decides what kinda property and thus tenants they want, by what the deliver. Tenants force Landlords to improve their standards, by not renting crap. There's no incentive for LL to spend money on furnishings, if it doesn't get them more money and better tenants, or of the tenants, break or steal the furniture and fittings. The cost of fixing that, or replacing might be the difference of making a loss or not.

I'm not saying all tenants or landlords are like that, but its the reasons why it happens. In Europe the standard is to rent unfurnished Which eliminates all this hassle for both LL and tenant.

Ortiz

@ Darlughda

Why???

Surely the tenants can make their own decisions? If I want to offer my dump for rent and someone is willing to rent it WHY is it wrong that I let them??!!

I'll surely have to offer a low rent in order to rent the place so the tenants will pay less due to the quality.

As long as I adhere to law throughout the process and both parties are willing then WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?!

How you don't understand any of this amazes me

Darlughda

BostonB wrote: »

Its the Ryan Air of Landlords.

At the end of the day the LL decides what kinda property and thus tenants they want, by what the deliver. Tenants force Landlords to improve their standards, by not renting crap. There's no incentive for LL to spend money on furnishings, if it doesn't get them more money and better tenants, or of the tenants, break or steal the furniture and fittings. The cost of fixing that, or replacing might be the difference of making a loss or not.

I'm not saying all tenants or landlords are like that, but its the reasons why it happens. In Europe the standard is to rent unfurnished Which eliminates all this hassle for both LL and tenant.

BostonB, I understand what you are saying.

However, for people who are forced to scrabble for a half decent place at the lower end of the market, it can be very hard for them to force LLs to improve their standards, and they have to end up making do with the crap and thus the cycle continues.

Better tenants are NOT necessarily those who have more money.

The attitude of there is no incentive for a LL to spend money on furnishings illustrates the whole point of why I started this thread.

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...
I am not talking about people living rent free or anything like that, nor did I say that making a profit is inherently wrong. ...

I can't see any other interpretation of this....

Darlughda wrote: »

...
Nonetheless, the idea of being a landlord being primarily a business decision is one that makes me .
This suggests a greedy individual who gives not a rat's ass about an individual only the bottom line on the return of their investments....

Perhaps you intended a different meaning...

Darlughda

Ortiz wrote: »

@ Darlughda

Why???

Surely the tenants can make their own decisions? If I want to offer my dump for rent and someone is willing to rent it WHY is it wrong that I let them??!!

I'll surely have to offer a low rent in order to rent the place so the tenants will pay less due to the quality.

As long as I adhere to law throughout the process and both parties are willing then WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?!

How you don't understand any of this amazes me

How you don't understand how it is wrong to take advantage of people who are poor amazes me.

Desperate people are forced to live in this kind of low quality hole, yet you would not dream of living there yourself, but have no moral qualms about squeezing the last penny out of people with little other choice.

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

BostonB, I understand what you are saying.

However, for people who are forced to scrabble for a half decent place at the lower end of the market, it can be very hard for them to force LLs to improve their standards, and they have to end up making do with the crap and thus the cycle continues.

Well its how the free market works. The alternative is for the state to regulate it properly.

Darlughda wrote: »

Better tenants are NOT necessarily those who have more money.

Thats not the issue. There a range of accommodation pitched at different budgets. The LL can choose to rent bedsits or mansion.

Darlughda wrote: »

The attitude of there is no incentive for a LL to spend money on furnishings illustrates the whole point of why I started this thread.

Regardless of attitude, its still fundamentally a business decision.

Faolchu

Darlughda wrote: »

My point is that if renting out a property is looked at as purely a money making excercise, then there is something wrong.

but from teh POV of the lanlord it is a money making excercise, only an insane landlord would go into it not to make money or break even. to go in with teh intention of making a lose is insane and said landlord would need to be put in a padded cell.

Darlughda wrote: »

Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to make a profit from renting out property, but a landlord is dealing with people here.

so are car sales men, so are icecream van drivers, so are taxi drivers, they all deal with people but their primary goal is to have an income in excess of their expenditure. if they didnt they wouldnt be around for long.

Darlughda wrote: »

A property should be decent, and furnished appropriately-(not with the current vogue for decrepit nursing home chic).
'Fit for purpose'- what about well maintained,

thats a given and most good landlords will provide that, it makes sound business sense to have a property that people want to move into. if they dont then ther profit margens would drop.

Darlughda wrote: »

If a landlord wants a deposit and months rent in advance, fine as long as that landlord ensures the tenant has their deposit back in time for them to secure their next accomodation.

I'm not a landlord but i would think that a good few do actually do this.

Darlughda wrote: »

Nobody is talking about rent-free accomodation. But taking advantage of people at the bottom end of the market by squeezing the last penny out of them for a tiny bedsit is just sheer greed, not idealistic left wing nonsense

any business has a bottom line that must be maintained to remain profitable. if a tenant can not afford a property that's not the landlords fault. well not 100% his fault anyway. a certain level of profit needs to be made to make the business viable. if i was in the game and only clearing 50-100 a month on a property personally i wouldnt thing it a viable business

Darlughda wrote: »

How you don't understand how it is wrong to take advantage of people who are poor amazes me.

how is running a business and asking for what you feel is the right sum for the property you offer wrong? is it the landlords fault that the renter is poor? no. its either the renters fault because they have no skills that are considerd worth paying for (harsh i know but it is a reality) or teh country for failing that individual and not assisting the poor.


I think the OP may have been either burned by a bad landlord or may not have the money to move into an property becuase the rent is too high.