The cost of being a landlord - who would want to be one?

Electric Sheep

tuisginideach wrote: »

Not necessarily true - our school taught 'Rights and Responsibilities as a Citizen' as part of TY.

If it is so well taught why are there so many "accidental landlords" posting questions about things they should already be aware of on boards.ie?

Potatoeman

tuisginideach wrote: »

And an exam for the tenants too then - they all know their rights but many (pretend to) know nothing about their responsibilities.

Customers don't take exams, service providers do. When you decide to run a business there are standards to follow.

relax carry on

One thing I have noticed in all the years I've been renting in Ireland is those landlords with more than 1 property inevitably fail to invest in maintaining their properties to anything bar the bare minimum (paint it with the cheapest paint available and hope for the best). This is contrasted with the accidental landlords I've rented off who all maintained the property to a high standard with a view to either selling on or moving back in eventually.

My view of the amature investment landlord and their inability to understand that their investment must be properly maintained is further reinforced by several ex rental properties I've viewed with a mind to purchase lately. Some of the houses are in terrible condition. It's obvious that there's been no capital investment for years. The house have literally been rented within an inch of their commercial lives.

The house I'm renting now has several structural flaws which would have been spotted years ago by the owners but we're never addressed. The problems which would have been minor initially have moved into major in some cases. The owners are amature investment landlords with several properties.

borderlinemeath

Electric Sheep wrote: »

If it is so well taught why are there so many "accidental landlords" posting questions about things they should already be aware of on boards.ie?

And there's just as many tenants asking is it ok to withhold their final months rent to ensure they get their deposit back or tenants giving out about not getting their deposit back despite admitting to causing damage to the property. And plenty of landlords post up about tenants who destroy their property or who haven't received a penny in rent from squatting tenants.

Electric Sheep

borderlinemeath wrote: »

And there's just as many tenants asking is it ok to withhold their final months rent to ensure they get their deposit back or tenants giving out about not getting their deposit back despite admitting to causing damage to the property. And plenty of landlords post up about tenants who destroy their property or who haven't received a penny in rent from squatting tenants.

Yes, I agree - ignorance about financial responsibility is a big problem in Ireland, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed by the educational system.

lima

handlemaster wrote: »

What a load of rubbish. Your generalisations are been rolled up as fact when they are not.we see nothing but moaning from tenants on the radio/ tv, newspapers online etc.

I was speculating as mentioned

Tenants are moaning because they are being taken advantage of by landlords incrementally increasing the market rate to try to bail themselves out of financial investments that they got wrong. They know that tenants have little choice in the matter; collectively opportunistic landlords are a scourge in my opinion.

borderlinemeath

lima wrote: »

I was speculating as mentioned

Tenants are moaning because they are being taken advantage of by landlords incrementally increasing the market rate to try to bail themselves out of financial investments that they got wrong. They know that tenants have little choice in the matter; collectively landlords are a scourge in my opinion.

Were tenants moaning when they were negotiating lower rents when there was an abundance of property during the recession?

Again you're making sweeping statements, not every landlord made bad financial investments, there's plenty that have let out their homes because they may have had to move or emigrate to avail of employment opportunities, or have met their spouse and moved to a family home, or a break up has caused a former family home to be let. They are just examples of people I personally know who's circumstances have changed. You may consider them to be a "scourge" but yet you yourself have had to avail of the service they provide before you bought your own home. And not everybody has the luxury or the want to do that, Landlords are a vital part of society, like it or not.

lima

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Were tenants moaning when they were negotiating lower rents when there was an abundance of property during the recession?

Again you're making sweeping statements, not every landlord made bad financial investments, there's plenty that have let out their homes because they may have had to move or emigrate to avail of employment opportunities, or have met their spouse and moved to a family home, or a break up has caused a former family home to be let. They are just examples of people I personally know who's circumstances have changed. You may consider them to be a "scourge" but yet you yourself have had to avail of the service they provide before you bought your own home. And not everybody has the luxury or the want to do that, Landlords are a vital part of society, like it or not.

Edited my post, I meant to refer to opportunistic landlords who provide a low quality service whilst trying to squeeze as much as possible through incremental rental increases and non-replacement of worn and torn fittings.

Jen44

ComfortKid wrote: »

You think people who rent have a choice? They can't afford their own house.
Landlords choose to to rent out there properties, no?

If I had a choice I would have sold my house without a doubt however as its now in negative equity I had no choice but to hold onto it! The cost involved in renting a house are not cheap especially considering I never wanted to rent my house in the first incidence! So to answer your question no not all landlords choose to rent out there house it becomes a necessity

LilyShame

Jen44 wrote: »

If I had a choice I would have sold my house without a doubt however as its now in negative equity I had no choice but to hold onto it! The cost involved in renting a house are not cheap especially considering I never wanted to rent my house in the first incidence! So to answer your question no not all landlords choose to rent out there house it becomes a necessity

Totally agree with you there! It's not a choice....for thousands of first time buyers ..
All locked into the role of LL...
Compliant... Or not insny cases!...with the only prospect potentially a NE tradup! Blah!

beauf

lima wrote: »

...If a landlord moans that much then maybe they should move on and not be a landlord. ....Also, I personally moaned about renting. But then I purchased an apartment so I done something about it

lima wrote: »

..Tenants are moaning because they are being taken advantage of by landlords....tenants have little choice in the matter...

But you say they all have a choice. Renters should just buy a place. LL should just sell up. Simple.

soaking_wet

lima wrote: »

I was speculating as mentioned

Tenants are moaning because they are being taken advantage of by landlords incrementally increasing the market rate to try to bail themselves out of financial investments that they got wrong. They know that tenants have little choice in the matter; collectively opportunistic landlords are a scourge in my opinion.

tenants have zero responsibilities in this country , its near impossible to evict a tenant without significant cost and even you get them out , there is no way to compel the delinquent tenant to pay what they owe after they have gone

riclad

Theres some some bad tenants out there,
and bad landlords who avoid carrying out repairs .
Rents are going up in citys, because there,s a shortage of rental homes, flats .And not much new building going on.
That,s market forces at work.
Government increase,s in taxes on landlord,s are not encouraging new
people to enter the market .
Builders say there,s little profit to be made in building new rental housing.
Some investors bought land in the boom at very high price,s .

lima

soaking_wet wrote: »

tenants have zero responsibilities in this country , its near impossible to evict a tenant without significant cost and even you get them out , there is no way to compel the delinquent tenant to pay what they owe after they have gone

Yeah that's wrong too I agree

rubberdiddies

I really don't get the tenant/landlord hating.

If there were no private landlords there would be massive numbers of homeless. After all you can't trust a government to build housing.

Equally if there were no tenants, landlords (albeit the non accidental landlords) wouldn't be making profits.

I'm a landlord who kept rent at about 20% below market rates for the past couple of years but due to Alan Kelly's interfering I have now increased it (legally) to just slightly under market rate simply because I will not be able to increase it for two years. How ridiculous is that? How many thousands of people's rent will be increasing for this same reason?

What a silly silly error on the part of that minister (or the overpaid external consultants who were paid massively to come up with that plan)

tuisginideach

rubberdiddies wrote: »

I'm a landlord who kept rent at about 20% below market rates for the past couple of years but due to Alan Kelly's interfering I have now increased it (legally) to just slightly under market rate simply because I will not be able to increase it for two years. How ridiculous is that? How many thousands of people's rent will be increasing for this same reason?

Exactly right - good tenants are hard to get and it suited me to keep the tenant by not increasing the rent - in fact I decreased the rent a number of years ago when new neighbouring tenant was being started on a lower rent because of the recession. I never increased it because I have a great tenant. But Alan Kelly's short sightedness has huge knock-on effects and will make the situation worse, I feel, not better.

4ensic15

I have just done a search on DAft of houses for sale of more than 6 bedrooms in Dublin 6. It appears from that that there are many investment properties for sale. Each of these properties is presumable unoccupied to facilitate a sale. there is enough accommodation for several hundred people in these houses with about 94 bedrooms in all. In the middle of winter and in the depths of a homeless crisis this is ridiculous. All of these properties are landlords selling. The vast majority of them will be converted to private houses with only a fraction of the numbers accommodated. This would have been perfectly all right in the years when there was plenty of accommodation available as it would be a logical way of improving standards but at a time of rising rents the fact that so many landlords are exiting shows:-
1. How many disincentives there are for landlords to continue in business and for others to replace them.
2. How current official policies are making things worse for tenants.

handlemaster

4ensic15 wrote: »

I have just done a search on DAft of houses for sale of more than 6 bedrooms in Dublin 6. It appears from that that there are many investment properties for sale. Each of these properties is presumable unoccupied to facilitate a sale. there is enough accommodation for several hundred people in these houses with about 94 bedrooms in all. In the middle of winter and in the depths of a homeless crisis this is ridiculous. All of these properties are landlords selling. The vast majority of them will be converted to private houses with only a fraction of the numbers accommodated. This would have been perfectly all right in the years when there was plenty of accommodation available as it would be a logical way of improving standards but at a time of rising rents the fact that so many landlords are exiting shows:-
1. How many disincentives there are for landlords to continue in business and for others to replace them.
2. How current official policies are making things worse for tenants.

Dont tell the lefties or they will want to occupy them

Jolly Red Giant

handlemaster wrote: »

Dont tell the lefties or they will want to occupy them

Damned right too - homes for need, not for profit.

borderlinemeath

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Damned right too - homes for need, not for profit.

What's stopping the government buying them for social housing? The truth is they don't want to, it's far easier for them to sit back and let the private sector landlords deal with the housing crisis. Then just sit back and collect the tax generated.

4ensic15

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What's stopping the government buying them for social housing? The truth is they don't want to, it's far easier for them to sit back and let the private sector landlords deal with the housing crisis. Then just sit back and collect the tax generated.

Those houses are empty. What is to stop them being leased for the winter. Why are families being housed in hotels at enormous expense and inconvenience when there are habitable homes lying empty?

borderlinemeath

4ensic15 wrote: »

Those houses are empty. What is to stop them being leased for the winter. Why are families being housed in hotels at enormous expense and inconvenience when there are habitable homes lying empty?

The very real danger of overholding by the tenant. No landlord wants to take the risk. The government wash their hands of any responsibility, it's all risk for little reward for the landlord.

4ensic15

borderlinemeath wrote: »

The very real danger of overholding by the tenant. No landlord wants to take the risk. The government wash their hands of any responsibility, it's all risk for little reward for the landlord.

What I meant was the government or City Council could lease them for a few months in lieu of paying for hotels. The owners would get the rent and could sell in the Spring.

jimmycrackcorm

rubberdiddies wrote:

I'm a landlord who kept rent at about 20% below market rates for the past couple of years but due to Alan Kelly's interfering I have now increased it (legally) to just slightly under market rate simply because I will not be able to increase it for two years. How ridiculous is that? How many thousands of people's rent will be increasing for this same reason?

If it weren't for the thousands of landlords who have been squeezing tenants because of the market rates then Alan Kelly wouldn't have had to introduce this. There's no doubt that had the law not been in place to restrict increases to 12 months already that many people would have faced multiple increases inside a single year.

It's ridiculous to feign annoyance that you were under charging and now going to market rates when it is your fellow landlords increasing rents who have forced this measure to be brought in.

aido79

borderlinemeath wrote: »

And there's just as many tenants asking is it ok to withhold their final months rent to ensure they get their deposit back or tenants giving out about not getting their deposit back despite admitting to causing damage to the property. And plenty of landlords post up about tenants who destroy their property or who haven't received a penny in rent from squatting tenants.

Thats why the sooner this comes in the better:
http://www.pierse.ie/beware-of-civil-debt-procedures-bill-2015/

Even one month of non payment would enable a landlord to start court proceedings and any damage caused by a bad tenant could also be recouped this way too.

handlemaster

4ensic15 wrote: »

What I meant was the government or City Council could lease them for a few months in lieu of paying for hotels. The owners would get the rent and could sell in the Spring.

Because of the issues and problems in getting these new tenants out. You can be sure once they move in they would refuse to move. Isnt it telling that it's easier and cheaper to leave a house empty for months while trying to sell it than risk over holding tenants. The government need to sort this issue out of over holding tenants why should a landlord have to spend thousands trying to get a tenant out who doesnt pay or move out when the property is to be sold.

4ensic15

handlemaster wrote: »

Because of the issues and problems in getting these new tenants out. You can be sure once they move in they would refuse to move. Isnt it telling that it's easier and cheaper to leave a house empty for months while trying to sell it than risk over holding tenants. The government need to sort this issue out of over holding tenants why should a landlord have to spend thousands trying to get a tenant out who doesnt pay or move out when the property is to be sold.

If the property was taken over by the Council the occupants would occupy on licence. They can't overhold in the hotels in which they are currently housed.

rubberdiddies

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If it weren't for the thousands of landlords who have been squeezing tenants because of the market rates then Alan Kelly wouldn't have had to introduce this. There's no doubt that had the law not been in place to restrict increases to 12 months already that many people would have faced multiple increases inside a single year.

It's ridiculous to feign annoyance that you were under charging and now going to market rates when it is your fellow landlords increasing rents who have forced this measure to be brought in.

I'm not feigning annoyance for myself. If anything it's for the tenants that will have their rents increased significantly because of this. I was a tenant for many years too. After all despite me being happy not raising the rent before Alan Kelly's interference, I will now be getting an extra €2400 per year from my property (and still slightly under market rate).

In my opinion this has nothing to do with keeping rents steady as I don't think it will work one bit, but all to do with electioneering. That much is clear. But electioneering in this manner is effectively playing with people's lives just to simply try to gain more votes for a party.

My tenants will now have to pay €2400 per year extra and I'm sure there are a few thousand other tenants in this boat also. It just seems crazy to me.

I was perfectly happy to keep rents far below market value but 2 years without being allowed to increase just leaves too much uncertainty for me.

I just can't see this working at all. If I was doin it all again, with these new rules in place there's no way I would buy an investment property. Will others feel the same and will supply decrease thus increasing rents? Time will tell I suppose

borderlinemeath

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If it weren't for the thousands of landlords who have been squeezing tenants because of the market rates then Alan Kelly wouldn't have had to introduce this. There's no doubt that had the law not been in place to restrict increases to 12 months already that many people would have faced multiple increases inside a single year.

It's ridiculous to feign annoyance that you were under charging and now going to market rates when it is your fellow landlords increasing rents who have forced this measure to be brought in.

Market forces - ie supply and demand is what's squeezing tenants. Alan Kellys measures have had the opposite effect, landlords are having to futureproof their rental income against further hap handed measures, changing interest rates and taxation increases. Not to mention the landlords that want to sell up and deplete supply further. It's the tenants that suffer throughout.

borderlinemeath

Article in todays indo. Stats show that out of the 13500 investment properties that have sold this year only 18% have been rebought by investors. Even though rents are increasing, it's the punitive taxation that landlords are citing as reasons to sell, that and the ability to get out of negative equity.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/1000-rental-homes-now-being-sold-each-month-34201627.html