Government to assist landlords in increasing rising rents

ted1

Zamboni wrote: »

The Irish Government will fund more money to private landlords and assist in increasing private rents for all non-RA tenants.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0611/622985-new-rent-supplement-plan-to-prevent-homelessness/

This is done under the guise that "homelessness" is the only option for RA tenants when in fact they could easily move to a cheaper location.

People will argue that RA tenants should not be "displaced" because of family, children, schools etc.

Nobody ever seems to afford private tenants this "displaced" argument when private rents rise and private tenants have no choice but to move the a cheaper location.

Higher rents= less dysfunctional mortgages on investment properties= better positioning for banks = better for goverement

Zamboni

ted1 wrote: »

Higher rents= less dysfunctional mortgages on investment properties= better positioning for banks = better for goverement

Ted, we understand that. But - we don't agree with it.
The banks, the state, property investors and mortgage holders all benefit.
But it is the private tenant and the tax payer who is funding this sham.
Even a tenants only "out" as an FTB is gradually slipping away due to price increase and rents eroding the capacity to save for a house deposit.
And nobody is there to speak for them!

whiteandlight

I would Argue it's also shortsighted of the government. High rents push up wages and limit disposable income damaging the economy. Everytime my rent has gone up my discretionary spend has gone down

gussieg

No you have not got this right.
I also am NOT ON RENT ALLOWANCE, do not have dispensable or disposable income to speak of, every time i spend anything i am taking monies owed in different areas i.e. ESB, phone , medical or Dental expenses, as i ALSO DO NOT HAVE A MEDICAL CARD, maybe the meds would help who knows...
maybe my language or skills of communication with the majority is not perfect, but i know what i mean if you know what i mean,well done and if you don't, surely this is an open forum for people to express their opinions and this thread in particular is about the Government helping to increase private rents?
Therefore, It is NOT A GOOD THING. IN MY humble or not so OPINION.

Knob Longman

There's the right way, the wrong way and finally the Irish way. Tenants rights are a joke here.

Claw Hammer

Knob Longman wrote: »

There's the right way, the wrong way and finally the Irish way. Tenants rights are a joke here.

Not a joke for landlords who are fleeced by the PRTB.

Claw Hammer

whiteandlight wrote: »

I would Argue it's also shortsighted of the government. High rents push up wages and limit disposable income damaging the economy. Everytime my rent has gone up my discretionary spend has gone down

The landlord getting the higher rent is taxed on it and will also buy items which attract high VAT and ecise duties. It is win win for the government. They are going to make tenants pay for the recession.

The_Conductor

Knob Longman wrote: »

Tenants rights are a joke here.

Landlords rights are also laughable.
Neither party are best served by the system as it stands- and the system is wide open to abuse by both unscrupulous landlords and also tenants.

Tenants have had their deposits garnered on spurious grounds- to the extent that most tenants now demand that their landlord consider their deposit as the last month's rent.

Landlords have had such difficulty in evicting non-paying or otherwise troublesome tenants- that in some cases its taken up to 2 years to retrieve a property from a delinquent tenant.

Deposits- are widely insisted upon as a month's rent- when this has absolutely no bearing on the potential damage that might be caused to a property.

There is no independent body where these deposits can be lodged.

There is an expectation that property should be let furnished, but no cognisance of the additional costs associated with this.

I could go on and on. The system as it stands- is deeply flawed, open to abuse, and suits no-one. It doesn't pay to be a decent honest landlord or tenant- you're going to get fleeced by someone with less scruples than you.

By rights, we should start with a blank canvas, and start afresh.

_Kaiser_

The_Conductor wrote: »

By rights, we should start with a blank canvas, and start afresh.

In soo many ways where this country is concerned - but that's another topic.

It keeps coming back to what I've said repeatedly on this forum. Until renting is seen as a professional business transaction by ALL sides involved and not as the stepping stone to ownership or last option for the poor/less well off that it's currently viewed as, the rental sector will continue to be the Cowboy Country of negligent amateur landlords and delinquent tenants.

But alas, as our leaders and media are busy stoking the fire for Celtic Tiger 2, and the phrase "get on the property ladder" back in general use (including here on this very forum) I wouldn't expect any changes beyond minor tinkering around the edges or the deliberately vague and open legislation this country is so fond of such as the recent changes to the use of mobile phones when driving... bold if you're texting, emailing or calling without a hands-free but GRAND if you're on Facebook, Twitter or other apps! :rolleyes:

Until that changes, a lot of the well-meaning advice you read here, or quoting from the rule book, just doesn't apply in the real world as the rules only work when EVERYONE plays by them!

makeorbrake

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

It keeps coming back to what I've said repeatedly on this forum. Until renting is seen as a professional business transaction by ALL sides involved and not as the stepping stone to ownership or last option for the poor/less well off that it's currently viewed as, the rental sector will continue to be the Cowboy Country of negligent amateur landlords and delinquent tenants.

It keeps coming back to EFFECTIVE REGULATION for the benefit of tenant and landlord alike. This is what people (from both camps) should be lobbying for.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Until that changes, a lot of the well-meaning advice you read here, or quoting from the rule book, just doesn't apply in the real world as the rules only work when EVERYONE plays by them!

Rules work in the real world if they are legally binding and enforced in a timely manner. Again - see the above point. Both parties concerned need to lobby for effective regulation.

_Kaiser_

makeorbrake wrote: »

It keeps coming back to EFFECTIVE REGULATION for the benefit of tenant and landlord alike. This is what people (from both camps) should be lobbying for.


Rules work in the real world if they are legally binding and enforced in a timely manner. Again - see the above point. Both parties concerned need to lobby for effective regulation.

You must be joking - the private rental tenant has even less say in things than the ordinary taxpayer at this stage, but seeing as they generally fit both categories they get to pay for it twice (higher taxes + higher rents) while being subjected to the nonsense that goes on in the sector from both landlords and other tenants.

There is absolutely no appetite for effective regulation of the sector given those who would be responsible for driving such change have a vested interest in stoking another property bubble.

makeorbrake

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You must be joking - the private rental tenant has even less say in things than the ordinary taxpayer at this stage, but seeing as they generally fit both categories they get to pay for it twice (higher taxes + higher rents) while being subjected to the nonsense that goes on in the sector from both landlords and other tenants.

There is absolutely no appetite for effective regulation of the sector given those who would be responsible for driving such change have a vested interest in stoking another property bubble.

I think you misunderstand what I am referring to when I say "effective regulation". I don't mean interference in the market. I mean the PRTB doing what it's supposed to be - protecting both tenant and landlord equally - and acting swiftly.