Rent to be linked to inflation

Victor

handlemaster wrote: »

Can you post what you have for Dublin ?

His location is given as Hamburg.

stevedublin

Fol20 wrote: »

a 10year lease should be set in stone where a tenant is liable for the entire amount and not just oh it's too expensive for a landlord to peruse us some will just walk way a whenever we want

sounds madness! - what if the tenant loses their job or gets a better job in another city or the company they work for relocates and they have to move too?
a 10 year lease set in stone is also unnecessarily restrictive to the landlord

athtrasna

castle2012 wrote: »

I'm in total agreement as I was a landlord until last month . I sold up an got out . The last 4-5 years have been pure heartache. Extra taxs and charges , tenants not paying there rent on time . I found myself going without to make sure everyone was paid . So glad to be out of it . And I don't blame any landlord for getting out as there is no reward s only hassle

Precisely! (been there done that etc). I would imagine any sort of government interference in the guise of rent control etc will only push a lot of landlords out of the market. It's simply not worth it unless you have a number of properties which were bought pre-boom or at the depth of the recession.

jmayo

galljga1 wrote: »

Quote from article:
"The news will come as a huge relief to tens of thousands of struggling households who are now facing rent bills not seen since the peak of the boom."
....

Feck me I nearly keeled over.
The indo and some others have finally figured out struggling households doesn't necessarily mean those with a boom time mortgage.:rolleyes:

Fol20 wrote: »

Why do the government have to interfere so much in the property market.

Ehh the government have to interfere to try and help correct the interferences they have already made.
Maybe if they hadn't prevented the banks foreclosing on mortgage holders who simply have not been paying their mortgages or helped make the foreclosure process much quicker then we might not have some of the mess.
And before you chime in that is PPR, it is not.
There is a huge tranche of buy to lets and investment loans in trouble as well.
Maybe if they hadn't flogged off all their social housing, maybe if they had built some social housing over the years we would not be in this mess.

Fol20 wrote: »

Market price should be set at what people are willing to pay. Not what inflation is.. If people can't afford a house near their friends or family. Tough luck. You will have to live maybe a 5-10 min drive away.

You are pulling the p**s, right ?
5/10 minutes away, by helicopter maybe. :rolleyes:

The market has been rigged and you just want to let rents rise exponentially.
Let me guess you are a landlord.
We are now reaching a stage where living in this country is going to be too expensive for most and see where that start driving FDI and ultimately the economy.
Why should some bright spark leaving college hang around paying huge rents, ultimately scrimping and saving to buy their own over priced home, all so that the people who screwed up in the past get some of their property gamble back.

Fol20 wrote: »

If they want to go to European way/commercial way, everything landlords do should be expensible, evictions should be quick and a 10year lease should be set in stone where a tenant is liable for the entire amount and not just oh it's too expensive for a landlord to peruse us some will just walk way a whenever we want. It's a two way street yet all I see is the government protecting tenants at the detriment to landlords. Unless this is properly implement and landlords actually get protect and actual benefits(doubtful), all I see is more and more landlords leaving the rental market as its already not a very profitable business. Thus decreasing the supply even more. Only in Ireland!!!

Funny in all your brilliant ideas you never once mentioned something like escrow accounts for deposits.
All your ideas for some reason are to benefit the landlord.

And isn't it always marvelous when a landlord sells up and gets out of the game or a house is repossessed it ceases to exist as accommodation. :rolleyes:

The government are going to have to do something about the rental market to correct the screwups they have already created.

James esq

The_Conductor wrote: »

Unfortunately- the PRTB have taken down dispute notices for numerous tenants and Landlords- who had findings made against them- on the grounds that it brought their names into disrepute.

If it was a definitive list- which people couldn't have cases removed from- wonderful. Its not though.......

You are wrong mate just checked all the adjudication orders are all there see

below

http://prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/adjudication-orders/2014

Victor

Can we move back on-topic? While deposits, over-holding, etc. need to be dealt with, they aren't part of a rent control system.

Moderator

---

The previous regime of rent controls (from the 1930s?) was ruled unconstitutional, as it unduly interfered with the landlord's property rights. As I understand it, the regime had arbitrarily cut rents wholesale, making it a loss-making activity and landlords couldn't afford to maintain their properties. The supply dwindled, to the point that one was almost exclusively left with poor quality bed-sits in the private-rented market.

That rent control regime was abolished and as the private-rented market was small, nothing was put in its place. This was a failing, as the constitution allows for a balance to be struck between property rights and the common good. However, I'm not sure if that would have suited politicians who, by then, had patronage over a vast, council-owned housing system. If you didn't kowtow to the politicians, no housing for you. There was a positive disincentive for politicians to allow a workable private-rented sector.

Of course, the current situation is different, insofar as current renters are no longer restricted to 'the lower classes' and students. We now have many people in their 30s and 40s renting property, some with good incomes, and politicians have to pay attention.

---

If rents are to be tied to inflation, it needs to be decided what inflation index to use - the consumer price index? The capital goods index? A new rental prices index? Note that such indices can differ wildly from each other. http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/prices/ Notably, the consumer price index is currently negative and lower than it was in 2008. Meanwhile, the Wholesale Price Index is growing at 5-10% per year, depending on sector.

Some systems band properties by size, quality, etc. I'm not sure if that is workable in an Irish situation. The initial rent needs to be set by the market. Aside from the constitutional position, having rents excessively low means that supply won't happen and we are back to where we are now - no construction for 8 years, no supply and excess demand.

If the consumer price index is to be used, then let it apply to all properties and apply it from the letting date, with annual reviews. It simplifies things and removes a lot of the red tape, argument and exploitation.

---

the_syco

jmayo wrote: »

Fol20 wrote: »

Market price should be set at what people are willing to pay. Not what inflation is.. If people can't afford a house near their friends or family. Tough luck. You will have to live maybe a 5-10 min drive away.

The market has been rigged and you just want to let rents rise exponentially.
Let me guess you are a landlord.
We are now reaching a stage where living in this country is going to be too expensive for most and see where that start driving FDI and ultimately the economy.

More of a case that if you can't afford city centre, you don't get city centre. Just because your family lives there, doesn't give you any right to rent a house there.

Renting is a business, and a business's objective is to make money. Introduce rent control, and any business losing money will sell up. This in turn heightens demand, and the people will be forced out of the city centre regardless.

Idbatterim

More of a case that if you can't afford city centre, you don't get city centre. Just because your family lives there, doesn't give you any right to rent a house there.

Renting is a business, and a business's objective is to make money. Introduce rent control, and any business losing money will sell up. This in turn heightens demand, and the people will be forced out of the city centre regardless.

a lot of this is down to government decisions, to not have an adequate transport system and Dublin city council decisions on having dual aspect apartments and only low density crap being permitted in the docklands (is a large part of the problem) The latter are local authority decisions, but the government should force them to get real, the consequences are too great and costly... If nama needs to get involved for the greater good, so be it. They have the finance and expertise.

I do not agree with any sort of rent control, despite the fact that I rent in Dublin. Let those morons in Government and the local authority sort it out, they are the ones who are nearly 100% responsible for this shambles. Banning bedsits, the outrageous taxes on the income on properties, the crap transport system we have, the pathetic effort to preserve our low rise skyline, which is pathetic, the only things that make it in any way interesting are the spires, poolbeg, mountains, some of our medium rise buildings etc. It sure isn't the 80-90% of the city centre architecture, which is pure crap...

Gumbo

castle2012 wrote: »

I'm in total agreement as I was a landlord until last month . I sold up an got out . The last 4-5 years have been pure heartache. Extra taxs and charges , tenants not paying there rent on time . I found myself going without to make sure everyone was paid . So glad to be out of it . And I don't blame any landlord for getting out as there is no reward s only hassle

+1

I have a healthy mortgage repayment against my rental income. Circa €400 per month more comes in on rent than I pay out but when you add the other costs and allow it for you taxes (I already have my 2014 liability worked out), my mate is a tax advisor so no surprises.

I won't have a penny left after taxes in fact I will have to supplement my tax return and that's on a supposedly healthy rent V mortgage calculation.

Greyian

James esq wrote: »

You are wrong mate just checked all the adjudication orders are all there see

below

http://prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/adjudication-orders/2014

They're not all there. Some of them are there, yes, but not all. People complain, they get removed from that list, but the list still exists, so some are there, some are not.

jmayo

Victor wrote: »

Can we move back on-topic? While deposits, over-holding, etc. need to be dealt with, they aren't part of a rent control system.

Moderator

I think it is all related.
The problem in Ireland is that some type of quick fix will be enabled that only fixes part of the problem.

The government will try and cooble together some type of rent control and not look at the wider issues affecting the industry, it's providers and clients.
And that includes some of the proposals by fol20.

Victor wrote: »

Of course, the current situation is different, insofar as current renters are no longer restricted to 'the lower classes' and students. We now have many people in their 30s and 40s renting property, some with good incomes, and politicians have to pay attention.
....

Some systems band properties by size, quality, etc. I'm not sure if that is workable in an Irish situation. The initial rent needs to be set by the market. Aside from the constitutional position, having rents excessively low means that supply won't happen and we are back to where we are now - no construction for 8 years, no supply and excess demand.

Our rental market has changed remarkably over the last decade.
No one is saying rents should be low, but you can't have situations where rents are jumping by 10-20% or where for basic accommodation people are coughing up over half their salary.

the_syco wrote: »

More of a case that if you can't afford city centre, you don't get city centre. Just because your family lives there, doesn't give you any right to rent a house there.

Renting is a business, and a business's objective is to make money. Introduce rent control, and any business losing money will sell up. This in turn heightens demand, and the people will be forced out of the city centre regardless.

Something has to be done, otherwise we are creating a situation that forces people to leave and it will be the very people the country needs.

I hear a lot of posters trott out the line about move out if you can't afford rent in city centre.

It isn't just the city centre, it is now the Dublin area.
High rents are now affecting most of Dublin, bar maybe some undesirable areas that no one will want to move to.

Will foreign multinationals site here if they realise workers will demand high wages just to live somewhat close by ?
Will someone move from the US to pay over half their salary on a crappy cramped Irish one bed apartment ?

Will people even move form other areas of the country or will they chose to emigrate ?

Very high cost of accommodation, be it rent or mortgage, has a major affect on our competiveness and our economy.
I can't understand how people fail to see this after everything that has happened.

And it isn't just businesses and graduates that will be affected.
I know students who now spend hours commutting into Dublin from neighbouring counties because it is now too damm expensive to stay in Dublin.
Down the line students will start going to other colleges and the Dublin city colleges willl in future be the preserve of either Dublin natives or the rich ?
Maybe some Dubs will want this, but lets be realistic it isn't going to be good for the colleges.

We all know renting is a business and I haven't met anyone saying landlords do not have a right to make a profit or a living, but price goughing in any necessary industry has to be prevented for the greater good.

A big part of the solution to this is providing additional supply and that is high density high rise, but brakes also need to be applied to the charges on the current stock.

MarkAnthony

People will jus have to do what they do in England, live outside the capital an commute in. It's more than possible with the current transit links, granted upgrades are needed.

The government know they can only push so far. Rent controls are unconstitutional and have been shown as such in the past. Private property is private property, the state needs to deal with the issue by providing social housing not penalising landlords.

At the end of the day around 40% of every euro paid in rent goes straight back to the exchequer. If you want to reduce rents deal with that issue, that's the only way I can ever see proper rent controls being introduced.

Idbatterim

People will jus have to do what they do in England, live outside the capital an commute in. It's more than possible with the current transit links, granted upgrades are needed.

there are huge amounts of zoned land within Co. Dublin, on the fringes of the current suburbs that is ready for development. There is still large amount of land in the docklands in the SDZ zone, that has mickey mouse heights permitted, that could be increased. There is the Irish glass bottle site, god knows what is happening with that. This is an issue of will on the governments behalf, or lack thereof nothing else. The Pd's years ago, proposed relocating the port, they did just that in Helsinki, it would open up a huge amount of land for redevelopment, 650 acres according to the Irish times article below from 2008, there are however plenty more articles on this subject...(god knows what that land will be worth in 5-10 years time)...

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/moving-dublin-port-to-free-up-650-acres-for-development-1.902559

Michael D Not Higgins

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Private property is private property, the state needs to deal with the issue by providing social housing not penalising landlords.

It's a lip-service exercise, plain and simple. It's easier for them to write a piece of paper than build swathes of council housing/convert Nama properties to council houses and apartments.

The payback period for building/converting and providing these and it having an effect on the market is longer than the government's remaining time in office. This is a short term measure designed to limp them to the finish line so they can say they've done something when the housing question arises for the election.

handlemaster

Berlin has just brought in rent caps


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/rent-cap-legislation-in-force-berlin-germany?CMP=fb_gu

Idbatterim

but there are already rent caps here to an extent, you cant legally charge above market rent and can only increase the price once per year. What is proposed is such an Irish solution and an attempt by the government to make it look like they have nothing to do with it, when in fact, in my opinion, they are massively culpable for the situation...

Greyian

Idbatterim wrote: »

but there are already rent caps here to an extent, you cant legally charge above market rent and can only increase the price once per year.

That only relates to existing tenancies however. If the market rent is €1,000/month for a 1 bed in a certain area, and the existing tenant is leaving, the landlord can then list the apartment at whatever price they want...say €1500/month. If they get someone in at €1500/month, it will mean that everyone else's rent is subject to jump to €1500/month at their next rent review, as the open market rent would now be €1500. By reducing the instances of big jumps in rent when a new tenant moves in, big jumps are rent review time would also be much rarer.

Greyian

handlemaster wrote: »

Berlin has just brought in rent caps


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/rent-cap-legislation-in-force-berlin-germany?CMP=fb_gu

The Guardian wrote:

Average rents in the German capital rose from just over €5.50 (£3.60) a square metre in 2005 to close to €9 last year, according to a report by property services company Jones Lang LaSalle.

Really highlights our exorbitant rents are in Dublin. I know many people paying about double that currently.

Fol20

jmayo wrote: »

Feck me I nearly keeled over.
The indo and some others have finally figured out struggling households doesn't necessarily mean those with a boom time mortgage.:rolleyes:



Ehh the government have to interfere to try and help correct the interferences they have already made.
Maybe if they hadn't prevented the banks foreclosing on mortgage holders who simply have not been paying their mortgages or helped make the foreclosure process much quicker then we might not have some of the mess.
And before you chime in that is PPR, it is not.
There is a huge tranche of buy to lets and investment loans in trouble as well.
Maybe if they hadn't flogged off all their social housing, maybe if they had built some social housing over the years we would not be in this mess.



You are pulling the p**s, right ?
5/10 minutes away, by helicopter maybe. :rolleyes:

The market has been rigged and you just want to let rents rise exponentially.
Let me guess you are a landlord.
We are now reaching a stage where living in this country is going to be too expensive for most and see where that start driving FDI and ultimately the economy.
Why should some bright spark leaving college hang around paying huge rents, ultimately scrimping and saving to buy their own over priced home, all so that the people who screwed up in the past get some of their property gamble back.



Funny in all your brilliant ideas you never once mentioned something like escrow accounts for deposits.
All your ideas for some reason are to benefit the landlord.

And isn't it always marvelous when a landlord sells up and gets out of the game or a house is repossessed it ceases to exist as accommodation. :rolleyes:

The government are going to have to do something about the rental market to correct the screwups they have already created.

Yes i do agree that the government should let the banks forclose on all people not paying their mortgage(both residential and commercial loans) I know people should be given some lea-way(maybe 3 months) however i hate reading threads of people not paying back their loans and going on holidays or people receiving bail outs for their loan while an honest hard working person are barely getting by trying to repay all of their debts.

Why can Ireland not make high density housing like they do in many other countries. I have friends living in Paris in a tiny 10sqm apartment that has a 1 combo bedroom/kitchen/living area and a second room as the toilet. I know its not ideal for the typical standard 2/3bed house people in Ireland think they are entitled to, however it enables people to enjoy a house to themselves and still have potential to get on the "property ladder".

I know many will disagree however people on social housing should not be entitled to prime real estate within the m50. The price of land is well too expensive so if a proper public transport system was implemented, housing could be built a bit further out and people could go by train to the city. Likewise people on social housing should be monitored every 5-10years so that if all of the children move out, the parents should be downgraded to a smaller house so that a new family requiring social housing can move in. A person that purchased their house privately can live as long as they want in a property as its their right to live the way they like when purchased privately.

Yes i am a Landlord but i am also renting at the moment so i am looking at it from both perspectives.

Yes rents are high, there is no doubt about it. Yes rents shouldnt be jumping by 10-15pc per annum. Likewise properties shouldnt be doing the same. If banks actually let a level playing field and all non paying mortgages flooded the market like they should have done a few years ago, we would have a much more functional,healthy and realistic market. Yet again the government interfering where they are not needed.

Houses dont cease to exist as accommodation, it may cease to be rental accommodation if the rental market isnt viable for landlords.

Escrow accounts can be a useful idea if implemented properly. I foresee that if Ireland implemented this. There would be a cost to the landlord for the PRTB to come out and inspect the property. Both parties will sign a contract that indicates the bad parts of a property, and then the money will be held in escrow. Who do you think will pay for the fee, Landlords will pass on the fee to the tenant, thus costing the tenant and the landlord more. Do you really want this now? Someone else mentioned it in a post above where it can be held in an escrow, the PRTB inspect the property, and the fee is the interest that is earned from the property. I think that would be a good solution for both tenant and landlord alike.

My ideal situation would be the following.
1. A competent PRTB are given powers to resolves disputes within one month. The entire dispute is with the PRTB and not through the court.

2. PRTB act as an inspection company when a new tenant is registered. Both parties sign a contract detail the property. The fee for this is through interest accrual from the deposit so neither the tenant or the landlord have any fees for this. A 3 month deposit becomes the norm. After a tenant moves out,A landlord has 2 weeks to lodge a dispute with the PRTB or the money is refunded.

3.Non furnished properties are the norm as lets face it. Landlords hate putting all the crappy furniture into a property so tenants can badly maintain them.Tenants im sure would prefer to have their own bed, instead of asking the landlord to remove their own crappy stuff. It also creates less disputes as landlords have less stuff to complain about. All in all, less hassle for the landlord and a tenant will feel more at home and have all of the stuff he likes himself. Tenants could even have the right to paint the house,however they would need to repaint it to the original colour using a professional service designated by the PRTB when they leave.

4.Long lease contracts become the norm. Tenants are actually tied to a contract they sign and are fully liable if they leave early. Contracts should be a minimum of 3,5,10 years. As a landlord, i would prefer to retain a good tenant at a cheaper price as its less hassle for me than people moving out every year. Rent reviews can be performed on an annual basis and can only be increased by a small percentage. If you want short term leases such as 6-12 months. Rent is more expensive, deposit of 3 months remains the same, Rent reviews every new lease, a longer term lease can be signed at renewal at the landlords discretion.

5.Tenants are sold with the house if they are still under a long term lease.

6. PRTB should contain a database of tenants and landlords, detailing the outcome of cases. It enables both landlords and tenants to vet them equally.

7.Being a landlord is a business and should be treated equally as such and not just a half arsed attempt of something between a business that can claim some expenses and not others.

8. Landlords main the structure,integrity, and main appliances of the house if they are included in the unfurnished property. Everything else is the tenants responsibility so cutting grass,changing a lightbulb etc are something that a tenant is responsible for. Any problems that do occur should be dealt with in a quick mannor.

9. Rent is set at the market rate so if a landlord wants to let out a crappy old fashioned house for 1 million per month he can. After the lease is signed rent reviews can only be increased by a small percentage.

10. If a property is damaged beyond repair and the deposit does not cover the damage. The tenant is fully responsible and money will be taken directly from his salary. If he is a low income earner, it will be taken out as a percentage however it wont be just a measly 10euro a month taking years to pay off. He maybe obligated to take out a loan to pay back the damage.

11. Utility bills are the responsibility of the tenant.

12. RAS or any other similar social housing supplements follow the same principles as the above. Money is debited directly to the Landlord. If say rent is 1000, 800 could be debited to the landlord and tax credit of 200 could be used to pay the balance. If a property is damaged, the government are liable for damages. The problematic tenant is removed from RAS for a minimum of 10 years and its up to the government to retrieve the money from the problematic tenant. At least this way problematic RAS people will be removed from the system, the government will be held liable for damages, rent received is actually inline with market rent and RAS people may actually have a chance of finding a house to stay.

I know there are probably a few more things to add, but all in all it makes everyone party more accountable for their actions be it a bad landlord or tenant. No one group is perfect, we just need to make everyone accountable for their actions and to have a speedy response time. Lets face it though, were living in Ireland so were not very forward thinking and only concentrate on what can help us to get a few more votes in the next election in a year.

Fol20

handlemaster wrote: »

Berlin has just brought in rent caps


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/rent-cap-legislation-in-force-berlin-germany?CMP=fb_gu

Just an extract from the article
""
They say they don’t stand much of a chance against competition from potential tenants with better finances.
The reality in Paris or London is that people with low income have to live in the further-out districts of the city
""

its a hard fact but is it fair that someone on a smaller income can rent a place while another person that is willing and able to pay more cant get the place because of government interference. Were living in a capitalist country and money talks. If you want to live in a communist country where money isnt the main way of purchasing everything, im afraid your in the wrong country.

Im by no means rich, much the latter, but if someone works their ass off, studys hard, work hard, lucky in life, they should be able to get items they desire by paying more than other people are willing to pay. Im sure everyone would love to own a ferrari but their just out of range for some people, so they just have to settle for a cheaper car instead.

murphaph

Greyian wrote: »

Really highlights our exorbitant rents are in Dublin. I know many people paying about double that currently.

It's perfectly legal to pay someone €1 (or less) an hour in Berlin. Be careful what you wish for! Lots of people here live on _very_ little money.

Take a look at Munich and it's a completely different story. High wages but massive rents as well. Germany is very regional and Berlin is a poor comparison with Dublin. About all it has in common is that it's the capital.

kidneyfan

What's needed is council housing. That said the Rental Accomodation Scheme works well for landlords (especially if rents are going to fall again).

murphaph

Greyian wrote: »

That only relates to existing tenancies however. If the market rent is €1,000/month for a 1 bed in a certain area, and the existing tenant is leaving, the landlord can then list the apartment at whatever price they want...say €1500/month. If they get someone in at €1500/month, it will mean that everyone else's rent is subject to jump to €1500/month at their next rent review, as the open market rent would now be €1500. By reducing the instances of big jumps in rent when a new tenant moves in, big jumps are rent review time would also be much rarer.

Should the same apply to housing costs for owner occupiers? Why not limit asking prices for property to inflation...what about in times of deflation? Would we force price reductions? I think it's a step too far.

I'm a landlord and I agree with rent control (using inflation or whatever) for sitting tenants but I absolutely do not agree with the new German style rent caps which limit what landlords can ask even for new tenancies.

murphaph

kidneyfan wrote: »

What's needed is council housing. That said the Rental Accomodation Scheme works well for landlords (especially if rents are going to fall again).

I have a property in RAS and do not agree that it works well for landlords. i don't see myself continuing in it when the current contract on that property runs its course.

Gumbo

kidneyfan wrote: »

What's needed is council housing. That said the Rental Accomodation Scheme works well for landlords (especially if rents are going to fall again).

RAS scheme in its current format is a no go area for a landlord. Too much hassle for the LL with not a lot of comeback.

Eric Cartman

murphaph wrote: »

It's perfectly legal to pay someone €1 (or less) an hour in Berlin. Be careful what you wish for! Lots of people here live on _very_ little money.

Take a look at Munich and it's a completely different story. High wages but massive rents as well. Germany is very regional and Berlin is a poor comparison with Dublin. About all it has in common is that it's the capital.

as it should be . No minimum wage and the removal of rent allowance creating an artificial floor would do a lot for dublins rental prices.

Victor

Greyian wrote: »

Really highlights our exorbitant rents are in Dublin. I know many people paying about double that currently.

Average rents won't necessarily be representative of all rents. There are still many parts of the former East Germany that have very high unemployment, low incomes and low rents.

kidneyfan wrote: »

What's needed is council housing.

No. What is needed is affordable housing that is sustainable across a variety of measures - capital and current costs, legal issues, energy usage, access, etc. Mixed-tenure, mixed unit size and type works best.

Council housing tends to end up being ghettoised (by income, age group, family status, health status), poorly maintained, rarely upgraded and at some level, politically controlled.

murphaph wrote: »

I have a property in RAS and do not agree that it works well for landlords. i don't see myself continuing in it when the current contract on that property runs its course.

As I understand things, RAS and rent allowance are being replaced by the Housing Assistance Payment: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/housing_assistance_payment.html

Eric Cartman wrote: »

as it should be . No minimum wage and the removal of rent allowance creating an artificial floor would do a lot for dublins rental prices.

It would be quite harsh on quite a few of the workers and residents though. A balance would need to be struck.

MouseTail

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It's a lip-service exercise, plain and simple. It's easier for them to write a piece of paper than build swathes of council housing/convert Nama properties to council houses and apartments
.

The €2.2bn announced in the last budget sees the biggest social housing programme in the history of this State. Of course we have to compensate for years and years of Part V and selling off the stock, but regardless, it is disingenuous to claim rent caps are to avoid building social housing.

Idbatterim

The €2.2bn announced in the last budget sees the biggest social housing programme in the history of this State. Of course we have to compensate for years and years of Part V and selling off the stock, but regardless, it is disingenuous to claim rent caps are to avoid building social housing.

who exactly goes into this social housing, does it benefit only the employed, or those below certain incomes, open to everyone etc?

Michael D Not Higgins

MouseTail wrote: »

The €2.2bn announced in the last budget sees the biggest social housing programme in the history of this State. Of course we have to compensate for years and years of Part V and selling off the stock, but regardless, it is disingenuous to claim rent caps are to avoid building social housing.

It's not that they're doing nothing. The plan provides 2500 houses in a year or two for the 90000 households on the list. This legislation is still a piece of rubbish which is half baked to cover up the cracks in their policy (and FF's policy).