The farcical state of renting in Dublin

I'm in the same boat as the op. I just want to rent something in D.11/D.9 that would suit my toddler and I. A one bed would do but I'd be blessed to get one for less than 950/1000.

Looks like I will be on my sisters couch for a lot longer than I thought

OldNotWIse

We rented a one bed last year for 700, now you would get 900. LL cant accept that our lease ensures this price until it ends and is up to every trick in the book to get us out before then! I dont know what we will do once the lease ends tbh

Only chance of getting somewhere decent is maybe renting with a another couple.

superman28

I aggree that renting prices have spiralled out of control.. I don't aggree that it its basic economics/capitalism at play.. there are hundreds of vacant properties all around Dublin, my appartment block alone is half empty in an area that is much sought after.

Solutions to this problem are hard to come by.. my landlord offset his extra taxes and charges by jacking up my rent. etc..

But a functioning society needs housing for its people,, and their are almost zero house completions in Dublin and still more or less zero repossessions..

The Spider

odds_on wrote: »

Not at all. The UK has a great amount of apartment blocks, all over England and Wales, that cater for people over 50, 55 and 60 years of age. They are designed for independent living.

These blocks have a communal living room and each apartment (usually one or two bed) has emergency pull cords or bell buttons which are connected to either a central point within the complex or to a privately run emergency control centre. Visitors are welcome and within the complex, there are several dedicated "visitor" apartments which can be used, by reservation, by visiting family or friends.

It amazes me that there are not more in this country. Here, any that I have come across are usually attached to nursing homes with associated elevated charges. Not that many retired people require such facilities.

So, now I have an apartment, in a country town, which has excellent transport connections with Dublin. I must say that I am not particularly fond of the town but I do appreciate the easy travel facilities and the particular estate in which my apartment block is situated. Excellent grounds, well maintained - we could do with some more retired people here!

Sounds absolutely horrific, mega city one here we come, and when they die we can send 'em to resyk (you'll have to read judge dredd).

We're leaving our house and apartment to the kids, end of. Seriously I doubt I'm going to get old and suddenly have an urge to live in the worst shared accommodation ever.

Sharing with strangers was ****e when I was in my twenties, really ****e in my thirties, and I'd bet it'd be the ****est of the ****e in my seventies.

Non runner, in my opinion, people in Ireland are far too parcochial, look at the amount of threads by people wanting to buy in the area they grew up in but being priced out.

Same applies to older people, they've lived in their house all their lives and now no mortgage, why should they give it up?

Younger lads need to either earn more or move out and commute, all these suggestions from move out the elderly, to repossess houses, so we can get cheap housing are insane.

cson

gaius c wrote: »

No it isn't. Real capitalism would see people not repaying their loans having the security repossessed and sold for what the market will bear.

The fact that only a tiny portion of housing stock is genuinely for sale is distorting prices in the same way that 0.2% of AIB shares being tradable is distorting those prices (AIB valued at €80 billion? yeah right). However, unlike shares, you can't short houses.

This thread isn't about sales; its about renting in the Capital. Now while I see your point in terms of the non repossession of houses potentially limiting the supply of rental properties; the discussion of repossession and distortion of true market prices is for another thread.

The way rents are operating now in Dublin is an example of capitalist supply and demand economics at work.

gaius c wrote: »

Dublin is the 33rd or 34th largest city in Europe, in a bankrupt country on the western seaboard of Europe. Take away the tax sheltering, double Irish, etc and a large portion of those jobs will disappear. Tax "harmonisation" is going to be the price demanded for the eventual write down on our sovereign debt.

Again you've completely missed my point. Dublin is driving the Irish Economy at present. The majority of jobs being created are in Dublin.

I made no reference to Europe, tax sheltering or sovereign debt.

gaius c wrote: »

With what money? 50% of the market is cash only. Our banks are zombies, alive in name only and foreign banks have no interest in exposing themselves to our "repayment is optional" lending system.

P.S. Finfacts have pointed out that while vacancy in Dublin city is currently around 5%, it was half that for much of the 90's with none of the panic we are seeing right now. Our young people are emigrating, thus balancing out much of the inward migration we are seeing. We actually don't need as many new houses as certain vested interests are making out.

Regarding point one; my argument is that currently you're seeing rental yields hitting double figures. If they start moving toward the teens then it'll be very hard for Institutional Investors to ignore the returns on property and you could see the return of development to the Capital. Some very valid points have been made on thread previously as regards the non existence of new supply and its impact.

I accept point two, but I would be conscious that we're a growing population and that emigration will taper off at some stage.

To be clear, so as not to delve off topic again, I have no interest in diverting from the OP here and discussing repossessions, lending practices, our Tax laws, emigration or sovereign debt however ambiguously connected to the OP they may be.

My points are;

> Supply and Demand Capitalist Economic conditions can currently be seen in the Rental Market in Dublin. However for it to be truly representative of Capitalist rhetoric then the price floor driven by Rent Allowance should be removed also notwithstanding it probably has little bearing in the Capital these days anyway.

> Dublin is driving job creation in the Country at present in a similar way London is driving job creation in the UK. The majority of jobs are in the Capital thus the trend of inward migration you've alluded to.

> Given the increase in Rental Yields, further movements upward would in my opinion likely entice Institutional Investors into the market to develop properties in high demand areas.

cson

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They aren't abandoning their houses and it doesn't need to be them all just a portion . Retired people do down size all the time. This is just a way to make it easier and better for everybody. You could even convert a few houses in an estate so they don't even move street.
If something isn't done many of these houses will end up split and rented out either way. The family houses of the past will some be too large for people to afford but viable as two separate rented properties. It has already started near me.

I don't know, I just think the way we're culturally inclined towards property in this country creates an emotional attachment that'd be very difficult to shake. Personally; if I'd worked towards making a home my own for the majority of my adult life I'd be very reluctant to sell it or leave it. Rationality doesn't come into it.

gaius c

cson wrote: »

This thread isn't about sales; its about renting in the Capital. Now while I see your point in terms of the non repossession of houses potentially limiting the supply of rental properties; the discussion of repossession and distortion of true market prices is for another thread.

The way rents are operating now in Dublin is an example of capitalist supply and demand economics at work.



Again you've completely missed my point. Dublin is driving the Irish Economy at present. The majority of jobs being created are in Dublin.

I made no reference to Europe, tax sheltering or sovereign debt.



Regarding point one; my argument is that currently you're seeing rental yields hitting double figures. If they start moving toward the teens then it'll be very hard for Institutional Investors to ignore the returns on property and you could see the return of development to the Capital. Some very valid points have been made on thread previously as regards the non existence of new supply and its impact.

I accept point two, but I would be conscious that we're a growing population and that emigration will taper off at some stage.

To be clear, so as not to delve off topic again, I have no interest in diverting from the OP here and discussing repossessions, lending practices, our Tax laws, emigration or sovereign debt however ambiguously connected to the OP they may be.

My points are;

> Supply and Demand Capitalist Economic conditions can currently be seen in the Rental Market in Dublin. However for it to be truly representative of Capitalist rhetoric then the price floor driven by Rent Allowance should be removed also notwithstanding it probably has little bearing in the Capital these days anyway.

> Dublin is driving job creation in the Country at present in a similar way London is driving job creation in the UK. The majority of jobs are in the Capital thus the trend of inward migration you've alluded to.

> Given the increase in Rental Yields, further movements upward would in my opinion likely entice Institutional Investors into the market to develop properties in high demand areas.

Your argument only makes sense under an electron microscope set to the most favourable magnification. Under the macroscope, it falls apart very quickly so I can see why you don't wish to address anything outside your very carefully chosen goalposts.

Gatling

I can only imagine the uproar if they approached people in LA housing living in properties that no longer suit there needs ,retirees ,parents all living in 3-5 bed houses for with only 1-2 people who's kids have all grown up and now have there own houses LA or other ,
I'd say it would free up plenty of properties for families that actually need the houses

cson

gaius c wrote: »

Your argument only makes sense under an electron microscope set to the most favourable magnification. Under the macroscope, it falls apart very quickly so I can see why you don't wish to address anything outside your very carefully chosen goalposts.

My argument makes sense because its directly related to the OP. Rising rents in Dublin. My posts are based on that. What's so hard to understand?

If you want to discuss the extenuating factors surrounding it; feel free to start or resurrect your own threads on it. I'd actually happen to agree with some of the macroeconomic points you've raised. This thread though isn't the place for them if we want to stay on topic.

drumswan

cson wrote: »

My argument makes sense because its directly related to the OP. Rising rents in Dublin. My posts are based on that. What's so hard to understand?

There is no free market in play - rent allowance and thousands of properties which should be foreclosed alone mean the market is artificially propped up by outside factors.

The Spider

drumswan wrote: »

There is no free market in play - rent allowance and thousands of properties which should be foreclosed alone mean the market is artificially propped up by outside factors.

If there is no rent allowance, and in a truly capital system there shouldn't be, it will have zero effect on rents in Dublin, I doubt it has much influence these days. Outside Dublin where there's no work is another story....

Why would you foreclose on properties that are rented out in Dublin, thanks to rising rents it now means they are performing and can meet their repayments, and possibly make a profit.

Although I'll say it again looking for repos to solve an accommodation crisis in Dublin is nonsense, and the stuff of fantasy.

drumswan

Thousands of homes coming onto the market would not ease shortages. OK.

The Spider

drumswan wrote: »

Thousands of homes coming onto the market would not ease shortages. OK.

Absolute fantasy stuff, as has been proven with the now closed repossessions thread, here's the thing when you repossess those houses the people you repossess it from have to live somewhere, so it really means the same amount of property available for the same amount of people.

Thousands of repossessions :rolleyes:

gaius c

I can see the folk on Frontline already.
"There will be no repossessions because a big thread about repossessions was closed on boards.ie, therefore the matter itself is also closed."

The Spider

gaius c wrote: »

I can see the folk on Frontline already.
"There will be no repossessions because a big thread about repossessions was closed on boards.ie, therefore the matter itself is also closed."

Nah, they'll probably be more concerned with the conspiracy that is........foreclosure stuffing!!!

The_Morrigan

Right, this is a one time warning.
This thread is about renting in Dublin, it is not about buying/selling, being priced out of the sales market or repossessions.

Stay on topic please.

Shedite27

lima wrote: »

Typical response of greed who doesn't see the point this person is making.

The Govt has created a situation where rentals and houses for sale are critically restricted and because of this, landlords are licking lips and trying to take as much money as possible from the young.


Landlords will always be stingey money counters, but the govt is really to blame

Why don't you go over here and tell this person they are "stingy money counters"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057153228

Electric Sheep

lima wrote: »

Typical response of greed who doesn't see the point this person is making.

The Govt has created a situation where rentals and houses for sale are critically restricted and because of this, landlords are licking lips and trying to take as much money as possible from the young.

Landlords will always be stingey money counters, but the govt is really to blame

Yer right about the landlords, sure if they were halfway decent wouldn't they let you stay there for free and pay the mortgage out of their own pockets, just like when payday comes you tell your boss not to bother paying you, you are not a money counter.:rolleyes:

jane82

Went to view a shoebox in clontarf tonight for 1300. Storage heating that didnt work on nightsaver. Didnt have a front door. You entered through a laneway servicing peoples back gardens.
Wasnt even near anything.
About 20 people there.

stateofflux

viewed dozens of places (studio 'apartments') in dublin 6,4, 2 over the past month... most would make you cry (with or without a chair :pac:).. most averaging 600-650 euro

one place i saw before the official viewing and it had not been touched in at least 50 years & stank of mould and old people so much i nearly started wretching..

i did not take it but it was gone off daft within two hours for 600 yoyos...

lima

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Yer right about the landlords, sure if they were halfway decent wouldn't they let you stay there for free and pay the mortgage out of their own pockets, just like when payday comes you tell your boss not to bother paying you, you are not a money counter.:rolleyes:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm talking about amateur landlords who have properties on the side to their jobs and try to raise their rent whilst not maintaining their properties to an acceptable standard because they are only thinking of the money and not the 'service' they are providing.

Luckily my landlord is sound and put a tonne of money into his property but there are others who are just not cut out to be landlords.

Santa Cruz

lima wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm talking about amateur landlords who have properties on the side to their jobs and try to raise their rent whilst not maintaining their properties to an acceptable standard because they are only thinking of the money and not the 'service' they are providing.

Luckily my landlord is sound and put a tonne of money into his property but there are others who are just not cut out to be landlords.

I thought that PRTB was set up to sort rogue landlords out but obviously another useless quango

ABC101

I see the rental sector as the "perfect storm" in which ordinary folk who wish to "just get a roof over their heads" are getting severely squeezed.

However my understanding of the situation is this...

The Co Councils do not have any money. Therefore they cannot provide the traditional council houses which they used to provide in the past.

So Part V regulations where introduced, where about 20% of a new housing development was allocated to the council for social housing.

This worked very well for the Co Council, as all they had to do was allow a housing estate to be built, and hey presto... social housing was provided by the private sector (bank, developer, builder and private house buyers).

Co Councils where delighted, as they did not have to employ anybody to build social housing... it was all done by the private sector.

As we all know... the financial crash came... banks, developers and builders stopped doing what they do. In addition private house buyers, property investors where also frozen out, as the banks refused to give out mortgages.

In addition to further deter property investors... Finna Fail introduced "taxation on a loss" for landlords, loaded up big costs for landlords in the way of non tax deductible charges such as NPPR (200), LPT, Household Charge, and the broadcasting charge (approx 170) will also have to be paid by the LL, not to mention water charges.

So what does this Govt policy do... well it deters private investors from providing a service by investing in rental property.

The reason why rents are going high... is because extra charges have been introduced onto landlords and with the policy of taxation on a loss, landlords have no choice but to increase rental rates.

In addition there is a a acute shortage of rental properties...due to a) the state does not build rental / social housing.. the private sector does and b) with divorce having been introduced in 1994, there are more separated people looking for a home.

To suggest that the problem is down to greedy landlords is factually inaccurate and demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the problem.

Populist comments like "rental caps" by Minister Jan O'Sullivan will do greater damage... as investors will be deterred from providing a service.

There are areas outside Dublin which are renting a very low rates, they have not recovered like Dublin, its possible to rent a 3 bed semi in Kilkenny for 650 / month, Portlaoise would be similar, not sure about Nass.

Back in 2004, one could rent a two bed in Sandyford for 1000e / month, now it's up to 1300e / month, considering the tenant does not have to pay LPT, Broadcasting charge, Service charges ie. garbage removal etc it could be argued that's fairly good value.

However with the Gov'ts or establishments policy of "internal devaluation" (where lower wages, higher taxes, more costs / charges) is introduced and the option of external devaluation ( devaluing the punt, burning bondholders) is rejected, people living in Ireland get squeezed badly.

That's my take on the situation, and I believe it could get worse.

murphaph

lima wrote: »

Luckily my landlord is sound and put a tonne of money into his property but there are others who are just not cut out to be landlords.

Sounds like your LL may be one of those. Property should be properly maintained but if he needed to put a tonne of money into it he is doing something wrong. The property is supposed to make the LL money, not consume wads of it!

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds like your LL may be one of those. Property should be properly maintained but if he needed to put a tonne of money into it he is doing something wrong. The property is supposed to make the LL money, not consume wads of it!

Capital costs will likely be spread. Personally if I had a choice I would forgo a percent or two in profit in the medium if it meant that my tenant would be living somewhere comfortable and better than barely habitable.

Borderfox

In ten years of renting I have put approx 20k into the house. New heating system, new bathroom other upgrades necessary in a house from the seventies. It's has to be viewed as a business regardless of how many you have.

I have chosen to cash it in and change my rental to my two bed apartment in Dunshaughlin as the tax consultant worked out its better to get to where I want to be.

davyy77

Well, we basically went to see another place for 1400,we obviously made the cut to the last few potential tenants, the agent stated an offer came in for 1550 and what was our counter offer obviously we siad no thanks! A bidding war over an apartment to rent is just crazy!! We were talking to another estate agent who was actually nice and admitted that landlords are getting greedy and keep asking for prices to be upped! My main point really is yes i get its a competive market but should be a certain standard aswell, some of the places are shocking, bad condition and looking for 1300, 1400 and the problem is there will always be people willing to pay that for kips!!

Bepolite

The govenerment can't intervene on the private rental market, it simply wouldn't survive a Constitutional challenge. Socieconomic rights are trumped (they're just in there for the craic anyway!) by the double protection of private property.

We need to start building again and start releasing some of the NAMA owned property.

davyy77

Bepolite wrote: »

The govenerment can't intervene on the private rental market, it simply wouldn't survive a Constitutional challenge. Socieconomic rights are trumped (they're just in there for the craic anyway!) by the double protection of private property.

We need to start building again and start releasing some of the NAMA owned property.

Yea I agree with the fact that property being held by financial institutions and NAMA should be released!

Gatling

ABC101 wrote: »

In addition to further deter property investors... Finna Fail introduced "taxation on a loss" for landlords, loaded up big costs for landlords in the way of non tax deductible charges such as NPPR (200), LPT, Household Charge, and the broadcasting charge (approx 170) will also have to be paid by the LL, not to mention water charges

Back in 2004, one could rent a two bed in Sandyford for 1000e / month, now it's up to 1300e / month, considering the tenant does not have to pay LPT, Broadcasting charge, Service charges ie. garbage removal etc it could be argued that's fairly good value.

Sorry you seem to be mistaken on some of your points,

Property tax is paid indirectly though the tenant.when property tax came in rents increased ,
Tenants by proxy are paying property tax ,
Broadcasting charge been introduced will also be paid directly by the tenant as its the tenant living in a property using devices capable of receiving public broadcasts through various gadgets ,
Exactly the same as the TV licence its paid by the occupiers or not in a lot of cases apparently,
Bin charges in apartments are paid through management fee's ,which in turn are paid by proxy by a tenant paying €1000+ pm,
Water charges coming in August will also be paid by the tenant or occupier of the rented property just like electricity and gas ,

So the tenant who's paying €1000+pm still has the burden all of the above charges either indirectly or directly on top of the rent + electricity+gas were already paying