What would you like the Government to do in the private rental market?

Pawwed Rig

Out of curiousity what would you like the government to do in a private rental market?

The_Morrigan

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Out of curiousity what would you like the government to do in a private rental market?

I think the reintroduction of the rent tax allowance/rebate would be a good start, especially with the rents going back to crazy levels again.

TheDoc

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Out of curiousity what would you like the government to do in a private rental market?

Without going into the supply demand debate that is obvious at this point.

The Government setup what has become the largest property portfolio in the country, NAMA. They have countless properties of the quality required for letting on their books, and instead of releasing this property to the market to gain a monthly return for the tax payer, they are holding out hoping prices increase to a point where they can sell them off for profit.

Not to mention that they are obviously firesaling high end property at a massive loss to the tax payer.

They've brought in a solution, that has been torn to shreds by just about anyone with half a year in Economics, in regards to their state guarantee for a percentage of mortgages for first time buyers. Providing a state guarantee on a portion of the mortgage, encourages banks to encourage first time buyers to go that little higher in terms of their mortgage, and will cause more inflation to the housing sector.

The constant non existance of regulation regarding auctioneers is back to haunt us again, with as recently as this afteroon a report carried out by Newstalk into auctioneers behaviour, and how auctions take place in the Dublin region. With no fee or incentive to ignore the scatter gun approach to bidding, the same buyers will bid on multiple propoerties, with the asssumption they will get outbid on a few but might get one. Auctioneers use this as a method to raise the properties value. With only a small sample size done in todays report, Newstalk learned houses going for, in two cases, 150k over the asking price, due to this method.

We have a serious issue with supply and a construction industry to it's knees. The reason why it can't bounce back, is because the Irish construction sector have structured payment caps for it's workers. So Construction companies cannot bring down the cost to build a unit, as their employees are under no obligation to take a paycut. This is a big problem as to why affordable housing cannot be achieved. A government intervention would be nice here, to negotiate an agreement for the consutrction sector to re-evluate it's pay schemes to be more realistic to the fact the sector is in tatters.

And considering when you speak to the construction sector who are willing to build and invest, they sight major issues with redtape bureaucracy getting land zoned, and outragous restrictions on getting housing built.

But to be pretty honest, and look, I'm not being smart, I shouldn't have to be making these suggestions. Granted I didn't vote labour of Fine Gael, the rest of the country did, they have been elected to act on their campaign promises. Of which I knew were smoke to just get elected, they should still be held accountable for them, and one of their promises was to ensure the housing market never fell into this pithole again. This issue has been ongoing since November last year, where it was blatantly obvious pricing in the rental market was skyrocketing due to the increase in demand not matching supply, along with more competition for property. They have haphazardly done nothing to address the situation.

I'm not looking for them to legislate caps, although it would be an arguement that most advanced, developed EU states, have a government centric metric and control when it comes to renting caps, I appreciate landlords arn't a charity. At the same time, there is a very real and present issue here, tht again is hammering my generation , and it would be nice if the old farts could maybe do something about it.

Obviously I can't decript your one line, but if you are insintuiting how can a government get involved in the propoerty market, I can assure you there is a hefty amount they can do. We arn't talking about, and I'm not advocating, things like the Government enforcing landlords to take rent allowance, I'm talking about government enacting some form of action, as to stop people getting totally priced out of the market.

Jesus you'd swear I'm lower class. I'm in a well paid job, and yet havn't a penny come end of the month to put away for a mortgage fund.

Geuze

Encourage the building of 100,000 units in Co. Dublin.

To make them attractive for families, apts must have:

utility room
separate kitchen and living room
plenty of storage, e.g. for bikes
space to dry clothes
2 bed = min 80 sqm
3-bed = min 100 sqm

Density: Allow / encourage / oblige 6-8 stories within the canals, and 4-6 stories between canals and M50

Rapidly move on all brownfield sites - encourage / force owners to sell or develop

Massively increase the construction of student housing to take pressure off standard rental market, e.g. double planned units at Grangegorman, etc.


Incentivise the demolition of old 1-storey and 2-storey houses within the canals and re-develop as 6-8 levels

Mrs OBumble

Make eligibility for RA based only on income levels, and remove the rent caps from it: unemployed people who do not want to move to slum areas should be able to choose to use more of their benefit to top up the rent.

Make it possible for people to set up standing orders (to pay the rent) against the money that is advanced to them via An Post. And then pay all rent allowance direct to the tenant.

Replace the PRTB with a regulated bond-hold authority, that is mandatory for LLs and tenants to use.

Cuddlesworth

Allow for legal eviction within a 8 week timeframe.

Create a means to pursue tenants in the private sector rental via unique identification like their PPS number for any damages incurred.

Create a means to vet tenants in the private sector rental via unique identification like their PPS number.

Provide a regulated independent body for deposit retention.

Apply a hefty property tax on residential and residential/industrial zoned land which is inactive and used. Apply fines to anybody who tries to game the system in regards this.

Increase the property tax rate here to something substantial, allowing for a more stable form of tax and decreasing the reliance on once off payments.

Allow councils to repossess unused plots/houses that have been abandoned and left to ruin.

Remove the levies placed onto new housing by local councils. It can be up to 60k per house in Dublin.

Allow the pay for exemption on social housing allotment in new builds but make it prohibitive, eg 20% social housing or 40% buy out.

Allow for high rise building in the city center, at a very high density. Have more areas such as Cherrywood, Sandyford, Citywest. Incentivise this.

Plannings wise, create a minimum floor space per apartment at a much higher ration then it is now, coupling with a minimum number of 3 and 4 bed apartments per development(on a scale of the total number within it).

Allow for reduced "protection" on older structures. A similar system as other countries, where the facade wall can be kept, but the rest can be knocked and rebuilt. It would be a far more effective then trying to maintain crumbling buildings with subpar wiring, insulation and plumbing.

The_Morrigan

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Allow for legal eviction within a 8 week timeframe.

Create a means to pursue tenants in the private sector rental via unique identification like their PPS number for any damages incurred.

Create a means to vet tenants in the private sector rental via unique identification like their PPS number.

Provide a regulated independent body for deposit retention.

Apply a hefty property tax on residential and residential/industrial zoned land which is inactive and used. Apply fines to anybody who tries to game the system in regards this.

Increase the property tax rate here to something substantial, allowing for a more stable form of tax and decreasing the reliance on once off payments.

Allow councils to repossess unused plots/houses that have been abandoned and left to ruin.

Remove the levies placed onto new housing by local councils. It can be up to 60k per house in Dublin.

Allow the pay for exemption on social housing allotment in new builds but make it prohibitive, eg 20% social housing or 40% buy out.

Allow for high rise building in the city center, at a very high density. Have more areas such as Cherrywood, Sandyford, Citywest. Incentivise this.

Plannings wise, create a minimum floor space per apartment at a much higher ration then it is now, coupling with a minimum number of 3 and 4 bed apartments per development(on a scale of the total number within it).

Allow for reduced "protection" on older structures. A similar system as other countries, where the facade wall can be kept, but the rest can be knocked and rebuilt. It would be a far more effective then trying to maintain crumbling buildings with subpar wiring, insulation and plumbing.

It's high enough tbh, I'm struggling as it is to pay that tax at the moment.

on_my_oe

I'd like;
Two months deposit, held by an external body and capable of being refunded within five working days (electronic approval by both parties)
Eviction within six weeks if in rent arrears
Trackable tenants AND landlords
Urgent repairs completed within 24hrs / non urgent within 10 days (with a list stating what is urgent), and compensation at a penalty amount to motivate the bad apple landlords
Rent increases capped
Rent relief brought back for the employed
Rent allowance reduced to 70% of the average rent by postcode; I think it's possible that landlords use the level of rent allowance to determine their rent, but then don't accept rent allowance tenants so private renters are penalised twice over

(And I know it's not part of the question, but bi-annual reviews of those in social housing to ensure they still meet criteria, with six weeks to move if no longer eligible).

Dredd_J

Id like the government to just butt out.
Every time they have interfered with the property market in any form has been a total disaster.
This last round has caused huge increases in rents.

usernamegoes

Dredd_J wrote: »

Id like the government to just butt out.
Every time they have interfered with the property market in any form has been a total disaster.
This last round has caused huge increases in rents.

Remove protection orders.
Roll back a large number of the planning laws.
Generally stay away from the free market.
Start knocking down social housing in the City Centre.

quadrifoglio verde

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Out of curiousity what would you like the government to do in a private rental market?

Keep their ****ing nose out of it. It's meant to be a free market, not a fecking charity service

ABajaninCork

The most urgent issue I see is the need to set up a government-sponsored deposit scheme like the Deposit Protection Service. It should be mandatory for LL's/agents to pay deposit monies in and register it in within 5 days of receipt. Too many landlords use deposit money as a personal fund, and are slow to pay it back. If they pay it at all.

PRTB needs to be much quicker in processing cases. No way should it be taking months to resolve anything. And they should have the power to bring cases to court where the losing LL/tenant should be forced to pay the awards. Backed up with stronger enforcement by the sheriffs.

It should also be mandatory for LL's/agents to supply tenants with a Gas Cert proving the gas appliances have been tested, conform to regs and in working order. Same for the electric.

Zamboni

Other than regulating basic accomodation obligations via county councils and the set up of an independent third party to hold deposits get the hell out of it and find social housing solutions elsewhere.
The less involved the better.

ted1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Make eligibility for RA based only on income levels, and remove the rent caps from it: unemployed people who do not want to move to slum areas should be able to choose to use more of their benefit to top up the rent.

Make it possible for people to set up standing orders (to pay the rent) against the money that is advanced to them via An Post. And then pay all rent allowance direct to the tenant.

Replace the PRTB with a regulated bond-hold authority, that is mandatory for LLs and tenants to use.

Unemployed people on benefits shouldn't have the ability to top up the rent, if they do then the benefits are too high.

makeorbrake

ABajaninCork wrote: »

The most urgent issue I see is the need to set up a government-sponsored deposit scheme like the Deposit Protection Service. It should be mandatory for LL's/agents to pay deposit monies in and register it in within 5 days of receipt. Too many landlords use deposit money as a personal fund, and are slow to pay it back. If they pay it at all

Cart before horse. Not until the PRTB is either straightened out OR completely replaced!

ABajaninCork wrote: »

PRTB needs to be much quicker in processing cases. No way should it be taking months to resolve anything.

They do - but obviously in their present form, they simply don't give a monkeys. There either needs to be a radical shake up - or complete replacement. Either way, there also needs to be accountability.
Who deals with complaints that are directed entirely at the PRTB themselves????


Additionally, there needs to be consequences for errant tenants (and by this I mean the very very worst tenants that completely wreck houses and move on and do the very same thing. There has to be a point at which the state turns around to them and tells them to go fend for themselves! It will never happen of course - but thats what SHOULD happen! The responsibility for this lies with City/County Councils, the HSE and Dept. of Social Welfare.

Cuddlesworth

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's high enough tbh, I'm struggling as it is to pay that tax at the moment.

Catch 22. A higher property tax would reduce the price of houses. Reducing the price of houses means a lower tax to pay.

Its really the only solution to stem the boom and bust cycles of housing we have going on right now and provide a stable property market, which in turn leads to a stable rental market.

murphaph

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Catch 22. A higher property tax would reduce the price of houses. Reducing the price of houses means a lower tax to pay.

Its really the only solution to stem the boom and bust cycles of housing we have going on right now and provide a stable property market, which in turn leads to a stable rental market.

I agree that the property tax needs to be meaningful (or the admin alone will just eat it all up) but it's not true to say that it has to be higher to avoid boom-bust cycles. Germany has very low property tax (it's based on a theoretical value of the property in a given area in the 1930's) and has a pretty stable property market to be fair.

The UK also has "expensive" property tax in the form of the council tax and who would bet against another few boom-busts over there before we're dead?

lolosaur

I think the government should implement a scheme where there is one dwelling per person. so you build enough houses for enveryone in the country. then for every baby that is born, you build a house. so if there are 200 babies born on Tuesday, you set about/ put plans in motion to build another 200 houses in 18 years time for when they become responsible for themselves.

quadrifoglio verde

lolosaur wrote: »

I think the government should implement a scheme where there is one dwelling per person. so you build enough houses for enveryone in the country. then for every baby that is born, you build a house. so if there are 200 babies born on Tuesday, you set about/ put plans in motion to build another 200 houses in 18 years time for when they become responsible for themselves.

That would be unconstitutional. Also it's not the governments job to house the country. Somewhere in the last 100 years a lot of people seem to have forgot that they're responsible for themselves

lolosaur

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

That would be unconstitutional. Also it's not the governments job to house the country. Somewhere in the last 100 years a lot of people seem to have forgot that they're responsible for themselves

everyone has the right to a free house.

Daith

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Also it's not the governments job to house the country. Somewhere in the last 100 years a lot of people seem to have forgot that they're responsible for themselves

No it's just the governments job to house people who don't work or pay taxes.

You have a job and pay tax? Not the governments issue.

Mrs OBumble

ted1 wrote: »

Unemployed people on benefits shouldn't have the ability to top up the rent, if they do then the benefits are too high.

So they should all move to slums, from where they have to spend more money on transport to get to job interviews and jobs.

There are always tradeoffs: what you and i are willing to pay for in different areas varies widely. I happily live without a car or a TV - but in return, I want to live close to things. You might want to spend your money the other way. I don't see that it's the state's role to dictate our lives to that level of detail.

Pawwed Rig

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So they should all move to slums, from where they have to spend more money on transport to get to job interviews and jobs.

He has a point. Welfare should be just enough to live on. There should not be any excess income to 'top up'.

lolosaur wrote: »

I think the government should implement a scheme where there is one dwelling per person. so you build enough houses for enveryone in the country. then for every baby that is born, you build a house. so if there are 200 babies born on Tuesday, you set about/ put plans in motion to build another 200 houses in 18 years time for when they become responsible for themselves.

What happens if 2 people want to live together and want a larger house than the government has built?

The_Morrigan

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Catch 22. A higher property tax would reduce the price of houses. Reducing the price of houses means a lower tax to pay.

Its really the only solution to stem the boom and bust cycles of housing we have going on right now and provide a stable property market, which in turn leads to a stable rental market.

But won't that just crucify those that have already paid a massive price and are liable for property tax? I bought in 2008, and lost my job last year, personally I can't afford any more on my JSB.

lolosaur

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

He has a point. Welfare should be just enough to live on. There should not be any excess income to 'top up'.



What happens if 2 people want to live together and want a larger house than the government has built?

Well obviously they do a house swap with a dead person.

Its simple economics people.

The_Morrigan

lolosaur wrote: »

Well obviously they do a house swap with a dead person.

Its simple economics people.

And ignore legalities like the succession act and probate?

Lolosaur please stop with your trollish posts, it's getting tiresome.

Cuddlesworth

The_Morrigan wrote: »

But won't that just crucify those that have already paid a massive price and are liable for property tax? I bought in 2008, and lost my job last year, personally I can't afford any more on my JSB.

While I'm sorry about your circumstances, decisions like this should be made for the good of the country as a whole rather than to benefit a small minority. The 50% drop on property prices created the need for a bank bailout and the subsequent tank in house building and sales lead to a huge part of the tax intake deficit from local authority to Revenue.

Every policy from this point onwards should be to stop that happening again, creating a stable building industry. Removing the reliance on once off payments to a more reliable tax base. All of this sounds bitter to the ears of those that overpaid for their houses, but the fact remains they are in that situation due to the way the government interfered with the rental and housing markets. And if we don't change something in another 10-15 years we will be back in the same position or worse.

ABajaninCork

If you're a home owner on benefits, isn't the charge stayed until you're able to get another job?

The_Morrigan

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

While I'm sorry about your circumstances, decisions like this should be made for the good of the country as a whole rather than to benefit a small minority. The 50% drop on property prices created the need for a bank bailout and the subsequent tank in house building and sales lead to a huge part of the tax intake deficit from local authority to Revenue.

Every policy from this point onwards should be to stop that happening again, creating a stable building industry. Removing the reliance on once off payments to a more reliable tax base. All of this sounds bitter to the ears of those that overpaid for their houses, but the fact remains they are in that situation due to the way the government interfered with the rental and housing markets. And if we don't change something in another 10-15 years we will be back in the same position or worse.

I didn't overpay at the time I paid well below market value & when I was working I had no issues paying any fees/taxes/debt repayments etc. However, we now have a society where a lot of people are unemployed and struggling, the good of the country is only good if it doesn't get everyone or keep everyone in the sh*ts. Do you honestly think that anyone who is tipping along nicely paying their mortgage, just about making ends meet or in negative equity is going to be able to deal with a massive property/council tax bill on top of everything else?

Would a change in policy that makes homeowners who are just about managing to stay afloat in a worse position not completely destroy the property market here?

Mrs OBumble

ABajaninCork wrote: »

If you're a home owner on benefits, isn't the charge stayed until you're able to get another job?

Why on earth should it be?

Property is a form of wealth, and the whole point is that it's a wealth tax.

A situation like that would be yet another disincentive to getting work.




What should happen (but probably doesn't 'cos we're just not that clever) is that there are some circumstances where a property owner gets a payment holiday or slow-down - secured against the value of the property when it's sold.

ted1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So they should all move to slums, from where they have to spend more money on transport to get to job interviews and jobs.

There are always tradeoffs: what you and i are willing to pay for in different areas varies widely. I happily live without a car or a TV - but in return, I want to live close to things. You might want to spend your money the other way. I don't see that it's the state's role to dictate our lives to that level of detail.

the states role is to provide for most basic requirements. you want luxuries you pay for them.

If you can afford a car on benefits your also getting to much. Public transport is made available.

look at the benefits they get in the North, we are too generous.


if you don't want to live in slum, provide for yourself. plenty of people working away providing for themselves are living in these slum areas that you speak off, because they can't afford to move.