Notice today of over 20% increase in rent?!

The Spider

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No it's 400k according to the census figures.



But rent clearly is expensive, more expensive than a plethora of other UK cities. London is an anomoly that should not be used for comparison.

i don't think you can compare Dublin to other UK cities, Dublin is the capital of this country, the other UK cities are not the capitals of the UK. In that sense Lima is right.

More people and companies will be drawn to the capital of any city as that's where the majority of jobs are, it's also the centre of culture for any country, so there's more of a demand to live in a capital city.

The other UK cities irregardless of size are provincial to London, you can compare rents in Galway, Cork, Limerick and Waterford to the cities you've listed in the UK.

Or if you must find other English speaking countries, with a huge IT base, and MNC's and compare the price in their capital cities.

Beaner1

Being a capital has nothing to do with it. It's about overall wealth and econmic influence. Do you actually think Dublin is a bigger player than Manchester?

pwurple

jmayo wrote: »

The thing is the three major historic parties will not want to disturb the landlord class, as after all they have many members who are in said class.

Firstly, there is no "Landlord Class" here. Landlords these days are people who bought a flat before they got married, and then moved into their spouses place.

Secondly, landlords have been bent over and screwed the last few years with increased charges coming down from the current regime. Rent is taxable, at eye-watering rates, but now the rent also has to pay PRSI... ya know, in case the flat ever goes on the dole. Oh, and USC of course. PRTB, NPPR, LPT... all bills landing in landlords laps. Don't even get me started on the mortgage interest swizz.


So I don't know where on earth you get the notion that landlords are some sheltered bunch of people. 70-100% of your rent isn't going near their pockets, it's going into the taxman and the bank. A boat load of landlords are even topping up the rent to make the mortgage.

The Spider

Beaner1 wrote: »

Being a capital has nothing to do with it. It's about overall wealth and econmic influence. Do you actually think Dublin is a bigger player than Manchester?

Again you're missing the point, Manchester is a provincial city, Dublin has more high earners in relation to size. Being the capital has everything to do with it.

Dublin is the centre of finance on the Island of Ireland is Manchester the centre of finance in the UK?

Beaner1

The Spider wrote: »

Again you're missing the point, Manchester is a provincial city, Dublin has more high earners in relation to size. Being the capital has everything to do with it.

Dublin is the centre of finance on the Island of Ireland is Manchester the centre of finance in the UK?

?? OK so Los Angeles is equivalent to Galway. Got it. I'm guessing you're a professional econmist with that level of knowledge.

The_Morrigan

Folks cut out the comparison chat please - it has nothing to do with the 20% increase that the OP is dealing with. Keep on topic or don't post.

The Spider

Beaner1 wrote: »

?? OK so Los Angeles is equivalent to Galway. Got it. I'm guessing your a professional econmist with that level of knowledge.

And where did you get that from what I said? crazy talk. How did you arrive at that?

Anyway here's the top 20 most expensive cities in the world, Dublin doesn't even feature:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/internationalproperty/10555550/The-20-most-expensive-cities-in-the-world-2014-in-pics.html?frame=2470639

Copenhagen and Amsterdam do, which shows it isn't all about size.

lima

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No it's 400k according to the census figures.



But rent clearly is expensive, more expensive than a plethora of other UK cities. London is an anomoly that should not be used for comparison.

Yeah sorry I just saw this too

lima

D12resident wrote: »

Hi Lima, appreciate your input, but you're not really adding anything to the conversation comparing London prices to Dublin. What we are talking about is current market values and annual increases applied by landlords. The London situation is what it is. If London had an annual increase of over 20% there would be uproar too I'd imagine.
And researching census statistics for the correct number of Irish people currently in the UK is not going to help people's current rental situation in Dublin

I appreciate your input but I am adding something to this conversation: rent is relatively cheap compared to other capitals.

The_Morrigan

lima wrote: »

I appreciate your input but I am adding something to this conversation: rent is relatively cheap compared to other capitals.

You're not & you have ignored mod instructions to stay on topic (there are three in this thread) - now don't post in this thread again.

/Mod.

Michael D Not Higgins

Whatever about comparisons with other cities, I still find the percentage increase huge, and would doubt something like this should happen in a functioning marketplace. I had a 3% increase in my rent earlier this year and nothing the year before that. I do hope the government follow up with some cap on the rental increases in line with the CPI.

quadrifoglio verde

JoeCole26 wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but dont know why Nama didnt allocate a certain % of apartments for sale to the general public rather than selling the entire blocks to "professional landlords" or REITS. I understand NAMA is set up to be as profitable as possible, but this is a massive oversight on the Governments behalf.

For example, Wyckham Point in Dundrum, was sold in Hibernia REIT. 280 apartments. If 50 of these were put on general sale at a reasonable market price then it would help people get on the property ladder and help stabilise rent in that area.

Granted, im probably dreaming that something like this would ever be considered, but its so frustrating the way things are going.

namas function is to return as much money as possible to tax payer, not give 50 people cheaper housing. It works out cheaper for Nama to sell the entire lot in one go, than sell the lots individually. As well as that putting that many units in the one development on the market could have a negative affect on values.

gaius c

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

namas function is to return as much money as possible to tax payer, not give 50 people cheaper housing. It works out cheaper for Nama to sell the entire lot in one go, than sell the lots individually. As well as that putting that many units in the one development on the market could have a negative affect on values.

And we can't have that because Michael Noonan "needs prices a bit higher".

MysticalRain

gaius c wrote: »

And we can't have that because Michael Noonan "needs prices a bit higher".

This from the party that expects turkeys like us to vote for Christmas (higher property prices) at the next election. It's really no wonder independents and Sinn Fein are riding high in the polls these days.

Tarzana2

Beaner1 wrote: »

Do you actually think Dublin is a bigger player than Manchester?

Yes, easily.

SeanSouth

I fully understand that people are upset about rising rents especially 20% rising rents !!. Nonetheless i feel that people have gone way off track in this discussion.

Rents have always been set with reference to general house prices. If house prices rise by 20% in a year then many commentators will agree that rents should rise at the same pace. Gross rents as a % of property value is referred to as the gross yield. Traditionally, landlods have sought yields in the region of 7%/8%. Who can blame them. Landlords need to recoup a % yield on their investment, otherwise it wouldnt be worth their while "staying in business" In 2008 when property prices were falling off a cliff. rents did likewise. Now we are seeing the reverse of that. One might easily conclude that rent levels are just now returning to their correct level. One way of assessing this in your own situation is to calculate the landlords rent yield. If the rent yield is 7% or less, its hard to argue that the rent is excessive.

Michael D Not Higgins

SeanSouth wrote: »

I fully understand that people are upset about rising rents especially 20% rising rents !!. Nonetheless i feel that people have gone way off track in this discussion.

Rents have always been set with reference to general house prices. If house prices rise by 20% in a year then many commentators will agree that rents should rise at the same pace. Gross rents as a % of property value is referred to as the gross yield. Traditionally, landlods have sought yields in the region of 7%/8%. Who can blame them. Landlords need to recoup a % yield on their investment, otherwise it wouldnt be worth their while "staying in business" In 2008 when property prices were falling off a cliff. rents did likewise. Now we are seeing the reverse of that. One might easily conclude that rent levels are just now returning to their correct level. One way of assessing this in your own situation is to calculate the landlords rent yield. If the rent yield is 7% or less, its hard to argue that the rent is excessive.

75 apartments at Lansdowne Gate, €20.2m, average €270k each. Let's say €300k for the 3 beds and 250 for the 2-beds for the round numbers.

(1350*11)/250,000= 6% yield based on 11 months occupancy.

jmayo

D12resident wrote: »

People Before Profit were very supportive of my case and offered help in setting up a residents association to fight our proposed increase.

Have you been able to galvanise enough renters into a block ?

The reason why PBP and SF, etc are gaining in polls is they are actually out there at ground level.

pwurple wrote: »

Firstly, there is no "Landlord Class" here. Landlords these days are people who bought a flat before they got married, and then moved into their spouses place.

Did you ever care to look at our public representatives' register of interests ?

Not everyone who is a landlord either got stung by the recession nor became a landlord because they moved in with their missus/hubbie.

There are a big chunk of long term landlords who you will find have been building portfolios over the years.
A fair few builders, auctioneers, etc were investing in property for years and it wasn't because they hooked up with someone in a biblical sense.
And hands up anyone who has had an ex Garda as their landlord ?

pwurple wrote: »

Secondly, landlords have been bent over and screwed the last few years with increased charges coming down from the current regime. Rent is taxable, at eye-watering rates, but now the rent also has to pay PRSI... ya know, in case the flat ever goes on the dole. Oh, and USC of course. PRTB, NPPR, LPT... all bills landing in landlords laps. Don't even get me started on the mortgage interest swizz.

People paying tax on their investment income ?
And whoever heard that property owners have to pay property taxes.

Landlords may not be as protected or cushioned as they once were, but do you remember all those section 23/50 grants that were put in place and worse still kept in place during a bubble.
All those grants were aimed at landlords basically offsetting their tax on other property income.

pwurple wrote: »

So I don't know where on earth you get the notion that landlords are some sheltered bunch of people. 70-100% of your rent isn't going near their pockets, it's going into the taxman and the bank. A boat load of landlords are even topping up the rent to make the mortgage.

Before you lecture us about landlords being protected would you mind explaining why in god's name we have a sizable amount of buy to let landlords in arrears and yet they have not had their property repossessed ?
One can cry foul of family homes being repossessed, but buy to lets ?

Anyway this is off topic and doesn't help the OP.

Even a landlord would surely agree that a 20% hike in a charge over a year is damm hard to take.

Beaner1

SeanSouth wrote: »

I fully understand that people are upset about rising rents especially 20% rising rents !!. Nonetheless i feel that people have gone way off track in this discussion.

Rents have always been set with reference to general house prices. If house prices rise by 20% in a year then many commentators will agree that rents should rise at the same pace. Gross rents as a % of property value is referred to as the gross yield. Traditionally, landlods have sought yields in the region of 7%/8%. Who can blame them. Landlords need to recoup a % yield on their investment, otherwise it wouldnt be worth their while "staying in business" In 2008 when property prices were falling off a cliff. rents did likewise. Now we are seeing the reverse of that. One might easily conclude that rent levels are just now returning to their correct level. One way of assessing this in your own situation is to calculate the landlords rent yield. If the rent yield is 7% or less, its hard to argue that the rent is excessive.

Rents are not sent in relation to house prices. Not in Ireland. They are set by the market.

pwurple

[QUOTE=jmayo;93292979Even a landlord would surely agree that a 20% hike in a charge over a year is damm hard to take.[/QUOTE]

I'd totally agree 20% is hard to take. Think hard about all the landlords who are sucking up their 20% hike in taxes and fees recently. My property related expenses have rocketed. Of course landlords pass it on, what are they, a charity?

Part of the reason rents are rocketing is because it makes less and less sense to be a landlord anymore. It's frikken expensive, and one arsehole tenant can cost you thousands in the blink of an eye, with virtually no recourse. People are getting away from it where they can, leaving a shortage of rentable properties, in a time of increased demand.

SeanSouth

Well I can tell you from any professional landlord's perspective, that the most important criteria for rental investment is yield. Any normal rental market cannot function unless basic acceptable levels of yield are met. If market rents are so low as to make the yield uninteresting to landlords, then supply of rental properties will dry up. As supply of rental properties dries up, rents will rise to restore the equilibrium. It's all about yield.

Beaner1

SeanSouth wrote: »

Well I can tell you from any professional landlord's perspective, that the most important criteria for rental investment is yield. Any normal rental market cannot function unless basic acceptable levels of yield are met. If market rents are so low as to make the yield uninteresting to landlords, then supply of rental properties will dry up. As supply of rental properties dries up, rents will rise to restore the equilibrium. It's all about yield.

Yields were below 3% for most of the boom. Rents are still down on 2000 levels sure.

oflahero

pwurple wrote: »

A boat load of landlords are even topping up the rent to make the mortgage.

This sentiment is oddly pervasive in Ireland and seems here to be used to justify such as the 20% rent increase referred to by the OP. Poor landlord! Imagine not having a risk-free investment! The horror implied by having to 'top up' the rent is ridiculous. What other investment class is risk free? Where is it written that property investment ought to be a guaranteed shoe-in? Why would anyone invest in stocks or commodities if that were the case?

anonyanony

oflahero wrote: »

This sentiment is oddly pervasive in Ireland and seems here to be used to justify such as the 20% rent increase referred to by the OP. Poor landlord! Imagine not having a risk-free investment! The horror implied by having to 'top up' the rent is ridiculous. What other investment class is risk free? Where is it written that property investment ought to be a guaranteed shoe-in? Why would anyone invest in stocks or commodities if that were the case?

Some landlords had to take a 30% reduction in rent when the bubble burst in one go, I know people renting for less the what they payed in 2007 that had a 20% hike this year. When the bubble burst they had no pitty for the landlord and got huge reductions bragging about it down the pub, they now complain about the raises being so unfair now even though they are still paying less then when they first moved in.

The ball being in the LL or Tenant court will change all the time and both will be forced to accept things they don't want to, atm LL is king a few years ago it was tenant

The Spider

oflahero wrote: »

This sentiment is oddly pervasive in Ireland and seems here to be used to justify such as the 20% rent increase referred to by the OP. Poor landlord! Imagine not having a risk-free investment! The horror implied by having to 'top up' the rent is ridiculous. What other investment class is risk free? Where is it written that property investment ought to be a guaranteed shoe-in? Why would anyone invest in stocks or commodities if that were the case?

Yes so to follow through on this point the Landlord should raise the rent to the maximum possible to ensure the biggest return on his investment, when the market allows. That way they can overpay on the mortgage to cover the possibility of future drops in rents.

Would you agree as that's the point you're making.

anonyanony

anonyanony wrote: »

Some landlords had to take a 30% reduction in rent when the bubble burst in one go, I know people renting for less the what they payed in 2007 that had a 20% hike this year.

If landlords had to accept a reduced rent when markets are soft (as they were) it follows that they are entitled to a higher rent when markets are good. Its the payoff for accepting risk.

Many people speak of paper profits from capital appreciation from rental houses, but the 30% capital gains tax and lack of any inflation indexing ensures that most rental houses will never be sold.

oflahero

The Spider wrote: »

Yes so to follow through on this point the Landlord should raise the rent to the maximum possible to ensure the biggest return on his investment, when the market allows. That way they can overpay on the mortgage to cover the possibility of future drops in rents.

Would you agree as that's the point you're making.

I'm not querying the landlord's decision to change the rent being charged. After all, ability to pay/demand sets the rate. The point I'm making is to highlight the common assumption that rent should AT LEAST cover the mortgage on a property investment. Why should it? A landlord's outgoings does not determine market rent - market rent does.

The Spider

oflahero wrote: »

I'm not querying the landlord's decision to change the rent being charged. After all, ability to pay/demand sets the rate. The point I'm making is to highlight the common assumption that rent should AT LEAST cover the mortgage on a property investment. Why should it? A landlord's outgoings does not determine market rent - market rent does.

Well for the same reason that guests staying in a hotel should cover the costs of running the hotel, otherwise it's a loss making business.

I think the point you're getting at is that if an investor bought a property for 1 million say in an area that the majority of similar properties cost 500'000, but then tried to rent it out to cover his mortgage at a higher rate than the surrounding property, well those guys are idiots.

I think you'll find in general that landlords take the going rate, tenants are very aware of the going rate and won't overpay, unless there's a lack of supply and a bidding war starts and the lease goes to the highest bidder.

worded

borderlinemeath wrote: »

That's a great way to get a good reference from the estate agency/landlord :rolleyes:. Good references are all the more important when tenants have to compete with multiple viewings and people offering on the spot deposits and excellent references.

Yeah tenant, bend over or you get no reference.
You have paid on time for 5+ years and now the LL wants to shaft you, smile or no reference?

How patronising

Reference / smeference. Get a friend to be your LL for a private let reference.
Rented a place for 10 years and our LL hiked the rent year on year and rode us on the final year as we stupidly said this was out final year on rent review.
It was at market rate and he attempted a 30% hike!

Oh yeah LL, we need your reference, charge us anything, don't think so.

Arbiter of Good Taste

worded wrote: »

Reference / smeference. Get a friend to be your LL for a private let reference.

And this is why private references aren't worth the paper they are written on and why more and more landlords will be looking for deposits equivalent to 2-3 months rent. Well done