Unbelievable rental prices : Mod warning Post #2

newacc2015

pwurple wrote: »

I disagree, I've lived in NYC, London, and Amsterdam, all in apartments. London and amsterdam were both converted houses. I think most of London is like that tbh.

New york was an apartment above retail, and this is where I think Dublin has oceans of space. Walk along the city streets and look UP! Vacant vacant vacant and dilapidated. I'd love to see some incentive for those to be done up and used. Location is perfect, if people could just get the fook over not having a parking space (no other major city has car parking spaces for city residents)

We did have tax relief for "living over the shop". Very few places took up the relief, as a shop owner doesnt want to a be developer. If you look at old pictures of Dublin from the 1970/1980s. A lot of the inner city was single storey. The upper storeys of buildings had rotted to nothing. I imagine when the upper storeys were rebuilt, it was poor quality and why they are empty.

A better idea would be to demolish all of DCC social housing in Dublin 2 and make it higher rise. There is 3/4 storey DCC housing beside massive office blocks. All of the old DCC housing should be flatted and made 8-12 storeys high(they want to do it). But all the heritage nut jobs always object to it.

pwurple

newacc2015 wrote: »

We did have tax relief for "living over the shop". Very few places took up the relief, as a shop owner doesnt want to a be developer.

Em, that was not quite the reason...
Property developers were excluded from the LOTS scheme. So if a landlord who owned a building with a shop in it was a property developer, they need not apply. It was limited to a very small specific list of streets. The tax relief was limited to a development max of €37k, which gets you a cardboard box. It was very complex to apply for, putting elderly owners off.

Ie, well intentioned, but (as usual) poorly implemented.

Ray Palmer

A huge problem with the rent above a shop option was lack of a separate entrance. Many of the building had no way to let a tenant upstairs without going through the business premises. They would have had to alter the front of the building it wasn't worth it to them. There was also the issue of security and insurance.
What they really should do is allow the un-used shops and office spaces be converted to dwellings. There was a requirement to build them in apartment blocks in some places but I have seen some vacant for over 5 years at this point. I assume the purpose was not to diminish the shops in an area but it hasn't worked so after years of vacancy they should allow them be converted via planning application.

newacc2015

pwurple wrote: »

Em, that was not quite the reason...
Property developers were excluded from the LOTS scheme. So if a landlord who owned a building with a shop in it was a property developer, they need not apply. It was limited to a very small specific list of streets. The tax relief was limited to a development max of €37k, which gets you a cardboard box. It was very complex to apply for, putting elderly owners off.

Ie, well intentioned, but (as usual) poorly implemented.

Im not saying shop owners were developers. A lot of olders shops in Dublin, who were intended to take up the scheme are often owned by the shops. There is no landlord, just the shop owner. But why would they want to get involved in developing over head? If they have managed/owned a shop for the last 20 years. Getting involved with a massive development over your shop would be too much for a lot of shop owners. They couldnt be bother with dealing with builders, estate agents, solicitors etc.

Barely Hedged

newacc2015 wrote: »

Im not saying shop owners were developers. A lot of olders shops in Dublin, who were intended to take up the scheme are often owned by the shops. There is no landlord, just the shop owner. But why would they want to get involved in developing over head? If they have managed/owned a shop for the last 20 years. Getting involved with a massive development over your shop would be too much for a lot of shop owners. They couldnt be bother with dealing with builders, estate agents, solicitors etc.

But what if they were incentivised to by the government? Something to lobby your local TD about?

geo88

Apartment rents are up by more than 11% in Q3 2015! Unbelievable...

Does anyone see any end in sight for this madness?

4ensic15

geo88 wrote: »

Apartment rents are up by more than 11% in Q3 2015! Unbelievable...

Does anyone see any end in sight for this madness?

What is unbelievable. It was predicted some years ago as already linked on this thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...php?p=79006148

There will be an end. The property market is cyclical and eventually more supply will appear and start to bring down rents. Sooner or later the banks will realise there is money to be made in lending to landlords who are getting great rents. they will also realise there is money to be made financing builders to build and building providers to provide. They will throw out the money, rental properties will come on stream, there will be an oversupply, rents will crash, the landlords and builders will go broke, default on their loans, the banks will stop lending, supply will tighten and here we go again.
It has been happening for centuries.

quadrifoglio verde

4ensic15 wrote: »

What is unbelievable. It was predicted some years ago as already linked on this thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...php?p=79006148

There will be an end. The property market is cyclical and eventually more supply will appear and start to bring down rents. Sooner or later the banks will realise there is money to be made in lending to landlords who are getting great rents. they will also realise there is money to be made financing builders to build and building providers to provide. They will throw out the money, rental properties will come on stream, there will be an oversupply, rents will crash, the landlords and builders will go broke, default on their loans, the banks will stop lending, supply will tighten and here we go again.
It has been happening for centuries.

Theres one issue, lots of landlords aren't making nice money to incentivise them to buy more properties or encourage others to do so

A possible long term solution is for the local authorities to build public housing owned by the state.
Anyone can rent it based on their needs and you pay a certain percentage of your income towards the rent, whether you be on the scratcher or work as a teacher, everyone pays the same percentage.
If you've no kids, you can have a one bed apartment, husband and wife with three kids, a three bedroomed house/apartment.
It doesn't favour the person who has never worked a day in their life to john and mary who can only afford to rent in postlaoise and so commute 90 minutes each way every day.
It treats both as equal. It means that areas don't become no go areas. There'd be no ballymuns, darndales or neilstowns in the future as you'd have teachers, nurses gardai living with bus drivers, minimum wage shop assistants and long term unemployed.

Completely voluntary of course, if you want to buy your own home or rent a 2 bed apartment but live by yourself, you're free to do so. You just might end up paying more

Personally Id rather live in a society where us adults could act as big boys and not need daddy government to hold our hand all the time, but this is ireland. Therefore, for me this is the most ideal way to ensure when it comes to housing provision, tax payers hard earned money is spent fairly

Austria!

Very strange to see LLs complaining here that they're not making much profit or are making a small loss on renting. Your mortgage is being paid off!! It's madness for a mortgage to be cheaper than a rent.

handlemaster

Austria! wrote: »

Very strange to see LLs complaining here that they're not making much profit or are making a small loss on renting. Your mortgage is being paid off!! It's madness for a mortgage to be cheaper than a rent.

You should get a BTL property sounds like theres lots of money to be made

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Being a landlord seems to be nothing but hassle to be honest, and after tax etc. you can't be making much profit. Plus you have to stump up 30 % for a deposit when buying. In Dublin that'd mean at least around 60 k as you'll want to buy in a good area that will rent well.

handlemaster

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Being a landlord seems to be nothing but hassle to be honest, and after tax etc. you can't be making much profit. Plus you have to stump up 30 % for a deposit when buying. In Dublin that'd mean at least around 60 k as you'll want to buy in a good area that will rent well.

Dont most LL s have a secret money tree they shake for the deposit and damages. The government seem to think so and alot of tenants. So much so is this opinion that higher taxes are almost certain its been the way up until now.

Labarbapostiza

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Being a landlord seems to be nothing but hassle to be honest, and after tax etc. you can't be making much profit. Plus you have to stump up 30 % for a deposit when buying. In Dublin that'd mean at least around 60 k as you'll want to buy in a good area that will rent well.

I bet you don't have to stump up 30% for the deposit, and you can use your home as collateral. I would imagine Irish banks are aping the British. Most of the mortgages being taken out in England are Buy to Let mortgages, where there is no deposit down, but the home owners using their houses as collateral. The buyers are also being given cash in the form of a "home improvement" loan on top of the loan for the house. The banks' business model is to see Buy to Let landlords selling to other Buy to Let landlords, often without any letting going on (this helps drive up rents and make the whole business look more profitable.)

It's a very similar model for commercial properties. Swankers in swanky suits, and swanky offices, selling swanky property back and forth to each other. Recapitalising the Irish banks, was all about setting them up with cash to loan to the same swankers to do exactly the same swanking as brought about the crash in the first place. There never was any other plan.

makeandcreate

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I bet you don't have to stump up 30% for the deposit, and you can use your home as collateral. I would imagine Irish banks are aping the British. Most of the mortgages being taken out in England are Buy to Let mortgages, where there is no deposit down, but the home owners using their houses as collateral. The buyers are also being given cash in the form of a "home improvement" loan on top of the loan for the house. The banks' business model is to see Buy to Let landlords selling to other Buy to Let landlords, often without any letting going on (this helps drive up rents and make the whole business look more profitable.)

It's a very similar model for commercial properties. Swankers in swanky suits, and swanky offices, selling swanky property back and forth to each other. Recapitalising the Irish banks, was all about setting them up with cash to loan to the same swankers to do exactly the same swanking as brought about the crash in the first place. There never was any other plan.

Hello 2005?
Own a house, wanted to buy a small commercial property for 70k with 30k cash, rest as mortgage. Bank not interested unless I had business plan to show how I would repay - would not take my home as collateral for the other 40k. Got messy with land registry after that so did not persue it but no buy to let or house as collateral with the bank I went to.

handlemaster

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I bet you don't have to stump up 30% for the deposit, and you can use your home as collateral. I would imagine Irish banks are aping the British. Most of the mortgages being taken out in England are Buy to Let mortgages, where there is no deposit down, but the home owners using their houses as collateral. The buyers are also being given cash in the form of a "home improvement" loan on top of the loan for the house. The banks' business model is to see Buy to Let landlords selling to other Buy to Let landlords, often without any letting going on (this helps drive up rents and make the whole business look more profitable.)

It's a very similar model for commercial properties. Swankers in swanky suits, and swanky offices, selling swanky property back and forth to each other. Recapitalising the Irish banks, was all about setting them up with cash to loan to the same swankers to do exactly the same swanking as brought about the crash in the first place. There never was any other plan.

This is total rubbish. This is not possible in ireland

Caliden

Not sure if this is the correct thread to ask this but I found an article online to try and help understand the new rent review laws and several of the scenarios had me scratching my head after reading a few posts on here that seem to contradict what this article is saying.

http://www.threshold.ie/advice/dealing-with-problems-during-your-tenancy/how-to-deal-with-rent-increases/


The 2 points in particular:
"If you received a rent review in 2015 then your rent cannot be reviewed until 24 months have passed from the last review. For example if you received a rent review on 2 September 2015 then the next review cannot take place until 2 September 2017 by giving at least 90 days written notification."

AND

"If you received a a rent review in 2014, no rent review can occur until 24 months of the date of the service of the Rent Review.For example if you received a rent review notice on 2 September 2014 then the next review cannot take place until 2 September 2016 by giving at least 90 days written notification."


Has this article got it wrong ?

Selik

Caliden wrote: »

Not sure if this is the correct thread to ask this but I found an article online to try and help understand the new rent review laws and several of the scenarios had me scratching my head after reading a few posts on here that seem to contradict what this article is saying.

http://www.threshold.ie/advice/dealing-with-problems-during-your-tenancy/how-to-deal-with-rent-increases/


The 2 points in particular:
"If you received a rent review in 2015 then your rent cannot be reviewed until 24 months have passed from the last review. For example if you received a rent review on 2 September 2015 then the next review cannot take place until 2 September 2017 by giving at least 90 days written notification."

AND

"If you received a a rent review in 2014, no rent review can occur until 24 months of the date of the service of the Rent Review.For example if you received a rent review notice on 2 September 2014 then the next review cannot take place until 2 September 2016 by giving at least 90 days written notification."

Has this article got it wrong ?

The first point is spot on but the second is complete rubbish. I'd also be wary of any Threshold interpretations on this law based on other posters advice here (and other forums) and also my own recent experience with them.

EagererBeaver

http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartment-share/dun-laoghaire/3-mount-town-road-lower-dun-laoghaire-dublin-865264/

This came up on another thread here. (Presumptive) landlord is dumbfounded that nobody appears to want this at his price point.

worded

EagererBeaver wrote: »

http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartment-share/dun-laoghaire/3-mount-town-road-lower-dun-laoghaire-dublin-865264/

This came up on another thread here. (Presumptive) landlord is dumbfounded that nobody appears to want this at his price point.

No pets allowed? Perhaps just as well as you couldn't swing a cat in there

beauf

EagererBeaver wrote: »

http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartment-share/dun-laoghaire/3-mount-town-road-lower-dun-laoghaire-dublin-865264/

This came up on another thread here. (Presumptive) landlord is dumbfounded that nobody appears to want this at his price point.

Link to thread would be useful

athtrasna

If you want to post about that property please post on that thread rather than link to it as it is a current thread.

Mod

EagererBeaver

athtrasna wrote: »

If you want to post about that property please post on that thread rather than link to it as it is a current thread.

Mod

Directed at me or the subsequent post? I specifically didn't link to it to prevent this thread from heading down the same path.