Vulture fund to sell currently tenanted homes in Dublin 15

davo10

Eugene Norman wrote: »

By protection I mean long term tenancy agreements and protection from dubious evictions. Since I have close relatives who have been evicted from their house (or face extortionate rents) that situation is much more relevant to me and more pressing socially than the few errant non rent payers.

Furthermore the evictions were legal and regardless of when land was given, they had legal title at the time of the evictions and were maximising profit.

Last post until I get some response from feedback.

In relation to his thread, the evictions are legal, the leases have ended, the properties are being sold and laws prevent rents from being raised above market levels. You may consider rents "extortionate" but if they are at market levels, they are reasonable. Irrespective of your relatives experience, In this case the owners have abided by the law, the tenants themselves stated that the legal advice they have received, confirmed this.

Villa05

newacc2015 wrote:

Landlords are business people. All they want to do is maximise their profit and they are fully entitled to do. Every other industry in Ireland does the same and it is accept as the norm. A LL treats his business like a for-profit business by increasing rents or selling their property, yet it is seen as greedy.

My post which you quoted related to making it easy for good LL to be able to find good tenants and vice versa. Your reply is irrelevant to that

I'm sure every other business in Ireland values it's customers and treats them with respect.

esforum

Villa05 wrote: »

Are they a secure LL up to date on mortgage repayments, many reports of LL pocketing the rent while not fulfilling their obligations on the mortgages

What are you talking about? You pay rent per month, what the landlord does with that money has no impact on you at all.

If he is not paying his mortgage he will lose the house, you will get your required notice period and suffer no financial fall as a result

Anakraz

Here is a quote from a broadsheet article today:

Furthermore, emergency legislation is needed to strengthen tenant’s rights to enable them stay in their home, and rent control is required to avoid economic evictions of tenants.

Finally, the Department of Finance and other government contracts with vampire vulture squid, Goldman Sachs, should be ended immediately

Talk like this could potentially cause a rush of vulture fund "sell-offs" in my opinion, trying to offload their assets at a nice profit before the government interferes. Either way this is a dire situation which all signs point to getting worse before any improvement is seen.

DublinDilbert

Gandalph wrote: »

They don't buy the loan books at their full value, they might of only paid 70% of its actual worth as Ulster bank just want it off their books. I don't know the specifics of this deal but that's generally how it works.

I'm not fully sure how the mechanics of it works, but for this batch of houses there is two blocks of transactions on the property price register, one in 2012 the other in nov 2015

Anakraz

Anakraz wrote: »

Here is a quote from a broadsheet article today:



Talk like this could potentially cause a rush of vulture fund "sell-offs" in my opinion, trying to offload their assets at a nice profit before the government interferes. Either way this is a dire situation which all signs point to getting worse before any improvement is seen.

The bigger issue is that people think legalisation should be allowed interfere in perfectly legal events like this where people have been given adequate notice etc.

Do these people really think that property owners should have to give up every right to their property just because it's rented, it's insane sort of stuff these people are calling for.

If there is any interference in this case it's going down a very very bad road imo.

beauf

Anakraz wrote: »

Here is a quote from a broadsheet article today:
Talk like this could potentially cause a rush of vulture fund "sell-offs" in my opinion, trying to offload their assets at a nice profit before the government interferes. Either way this is a dire situation which all signs point to getting worse before any improvement is seen.

Very unlikely. The Govt are on the side of the Vulture funds. More likely they'll do something to push small LL out of the market, in favor of big business.

quadrifoglio verde

A lot of people seem to be having issues with these vulture funds? Its not like they're doing anything wrong?
They bought assets at a price that Nama or in this case the uk taxpayer was happy to accept.

David McWilliams had an article in todays business post giving out how the insiders have become the outsiders and the outsiders the insiders. Saying that its unfair that a vulture fund can buy irish assets, when a developer who offers similar to buy back his loans can't.
Can you imagine the outrage if the bogeyman that is the developer bought back his loans with a 30% discount?
Catherine Murphy would think all her christmas's had came at once

beauf

I think peoples problem is that its they who are losing in all these deals. Every-time. The Govt seems more interested in selling off stuff than the plight of its own people.

handlemaster

ThisRegard wrote: »

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Work references and a copy of bank statement to ensure there is a monthly wage deposited from said company. It's certainly intrusive and I can see why a lot of tenants would get pissed off having to supply such personal details but at the end of the day you're letting an asset worth in the hundreds of thousands. They'd have to show the same details to apply for a loan or a credit card even.

I was reading comments on the journal article today regarding the meeting last night, the AAA are trying to rabble rouse the community and telling the tenants not to leave their homes. Even though twinlite have allegedly extended the notices up to 18 months to seemingly let the leases run out rather than terminate them, they still want special treatment for the tenants.

http://www.thejournal.ie/tyrrelstown-action-group-2669043-Mar2016/?utm_source=facebook_short

I don't think Twinlite ever intended to terminate the leases, they said from the outset they're just not going to renew them. Which is why I don't really agree that there is any evictions.

Coppinger has a hard on for Twinlite for years now, objected to pretty much everything in the area, including the school she sends her daughter to. She tried to convince some residents that they didn't have to pay their management fees and quickly abandoned them a couple of years ago when a massive 10 or 20 people turned up to one of her protests in the area, showing her without a doubt she has little support for any of her bull****.

Add your reply here.

The capitalist statement in the indo today says more for the sellers than the tenants. Yes we live in a capitalist society

Riverireland

Nova Howling Millipede wrote: »

The bigger issue is that people think legalisation should be allowed interfere in perfectly legal events like this where people have been given adequate notice etc.

Do these people really think that property owners should have to give up every right to their property just because it's rented, it's insane sort of stuff these people are calling for.

If there is any interference in this case it's going down a very very bad road imo.

I believe quite the opposite. Vulture funds should be stopped from the practice of gambling on people's homes. inwould suggest watching Brad pits new movie for a lay mans view on it, The Big Short, good film.

Villa05

esforum wrote:

What are you talking about? You pay rent per month, what the landlord does with that money has no impact on you at all.

Would you rent a house from a person that does not own or is not fulfilling their obligations in relation to ownership of that property.

Like most other areas regulation of the rental market is not fit for purpose for both LL and tenant

I have no objection to a LL asking for proof of ability to pay rent,
I also don't see any issue with a tenant requesting proof that the LL is not reneging on mortgage repayments that would cause issues for the tennant in future.

Parties to the rental contract are just trying to protect themselves, nothing wrong with that.

Maybe this is for a separate thread as it relates to rental market in general rather than this tyrelstown issue

handlemaster

Villa05 wrote: »

esforum wrote:

What are you talking about? You pay rent per month, what the landlord does with that money has no impact on you at all.

Would you rent a house from a person that does not own or is not fulfilling their obligations in relation to ownership of that property.

Like most other areas regulation of the rental market is not fit for purpose for both LL and tenant

I have no objection to a LL asking for proof of ability to pay rent,
I also don't see any issue with a tenant requesting proof that the LL is not reneging on mortgage repayments that would cause issues for the tennant in future.

Parties to the rental contract are just trying to protect themselves, nothing wrong with that.

Maybe this is for a separate thread as it relates to rental market in general rather than this tyrelstown issue

Add your reply here.


When its your property as in the Landlord you call the shots until the tenant moves in. Then the law is totally for the tenant. ..

beauf

LL might have no mortgage but might still not full-fill their "obligations". Even if the property falls back to the ownership of the bank etc. It doesn't change the tenants rights in that property, they would just have a new LL.

You'd also have to ask if either party knows the other has credit difficulty, would that influence their own actions.

Riverireland

Riverireland wrote: »

I believe quite the opposite. Vulture funds should be stopped from the practice of gambling on people's homes. inwould suggest watching Brad pits new movie for a lay mans view on it, The Big Short, good film.

If they don't own them then they are never really their home only their temporary home.

Property ownership and renting etc is a business and these funds are simply running a business to make profit for their investors who could easily be anyone who invests money be it their pension or other investments.

While I agree that there has to be rights and protections for tenants (and I think in Ireland they have too much power not to little in the way people are over holding for months or years and not paying rent along with some other practices rouge tenants get up to) at the end of the day they do not own the property and the owner has to retain power over it. You also cannot come along and say who can and can't buy or own property that's total off the wall stuff and lets be honest anyone renting for 8 years with a family should really have been working towards getting into a position to buy anyway.

Nobody is saying its easy for these families who have to move out but that's just the way it is. It will also open up lots of properties for people who want to buy and who are struggling to find properties, the people renting there can also buy the house they are living in if they wish.

beauf wrote: »

LL might have no mortgage but might still not full-fill their "obligations". Even if the property falls back to the ownership of the bank etc. It doesn't change the tenants rights in that property, they would just have a new LL.

You'd also have to ask if either party knows the other has credit difficulty, would that influence their own actions.

While I don't agree with LLs requesting to see tenants bank statements or tenants seeing LLs you are playing down the impact of the bank taking over a property. It's almost guaranteed the tenant will be moved out as soon as legally possible by the bank so it's going to be much more uncertain than if renting from a LL.

Barely Hedged

Riverireland wrote: »

I believe quite the opposite. Vulture funds should be stopped from the practice of gambling on people's homes. inwould suggest watching Brad pits new movie for a lay mans view on it, The Big Short, good film.

You base your interpretation of real life on a Hollywood movie that was "inspired/dramatised by the events" of a book that was "inspired/dramatised by the events" of a second or third hand story the author received.

How far removed from reality do you want to be?

Barely Hedged

Riverireland wrote: »

I believe quite the opposite. Vulture funds should be stopped from the practice of gambling on people's homes. inwould suggest watching Brad pits new movie for a lay mans view on it, The Big Short, good film.

Also, they bought the properties when the arse was falling out of the market and nobody would touch anything in Ireland.

Say their investment went the other way and they were now selling at a 30% loss, which might have well happened, considering the context of 2008. What would your opinion be then?

esforum

Villa05 wrote: »

Would you rent a house from a person that does not own or is not fulfilling their obligations in relation to ownership of that property.

Like most other areas regulation of the rental market is not fit for purpose for both LL and tenant

I have no objection to a LL asking for proof of ability to pay rent,
I also don't see any issue with a tenant requesting proof that the LL is not reneging on mortgage repayments that would cause issues for the tennant in future.

Parties to the rental contract are just trying to protect themselves, nothing wrong with that.

Maybe this is for a separate thread as it relates to rental market in general rather than this tyrelstown issue

This is plain and simple gibberish by someone who just wants to argue and fight the big bad landlord.

Rental contract has zero, I repeat zero to do with the mortgage agreement. You are renting MY asset, you want to live in MY HOUSE. You are PAYING ME.

The bank give me money, I am taking their asset, they will lose if I renage, I wont lose if they renage.

How in the name of all in heaven can the tenent be effected by my fights with the bank?

esforum

esforum wrote: »

T

How in the name of all in heaven can the tenent be effected by my fights with the bank?

As I posted above you will most likely be forced to move which is a hassle and an expense.

beauf

Nova Howling Millipede wrote: »

....While I don't agree with LLs requesting to see tenants bank statements or tenants seeing LLs you are playing down the impact of the bank taking over a property. It's almost guaranteed the tenant will be moved out as soon as legally possible by the bank so it's going to be much more uncertain than if renting from a LL.

Legally its the same.

What you want is the law changed for security of tenure. This is a double edged sword though. If the security of tenure results in an un economical premises. Then the LL will just leave the market.

Villa05

Maybe my communication is poor, but if you re-read my posts, you will find that I'm suggesting methods that could be used for good Tennant to find good LL

If LL has an issue with the bank regarding rented property, The tennant can be seriously affected. I see no issue with a tennant seeking information that can help them avoid falling into this trap

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Legally its the same.

What you want is the law changed for security of tenure. This is a double edged sword though. If the security of tenure results in an un economical premises. Then the LL will just leave the market.

I personally don't want anything changed to make tenants positions stronger as they already hold too much power imo in many instances such as the ease at which they can over hold (I'm not a LL btw).

I was just pointing out that a LL being in trouble with the back can have an impact on the tenants as they may have to move out much sooner than they had planned.

January

There are 9 houses in cruise park drive for sale on daft with sitting tenants.

quadrifoglio verde

January wrote: »

There are 9 houses in cruise park drive for sale on daft with sitting tenants.

The only people who can buy these are cash buyers. Banks won't lend with sitting tenants.
Thanks to Ireland's tenancy laws in which it can take over a year to evict a non paying tenant, you won't find too many first time buyers running out to buy houses with sitting tenants

worded

Macwilliams wrote an article on vulture funds and it an interesting read
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/03/21/nama-sells-to-outsiders-who-have-become-insiders?utm_source=Website+Subscribers&utm_campaign=99e81d93ff-22112012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_861a00f27d-99e81d93ff-266237433

I'm on a phone and can't paste the content

newacc2015

worded wrote: »

Macwilliams wrote an article on vulture funds and it an interesting read
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/03/21/nama-sells-to-outsiders-who-have-become-insiders?utm_source=Website+Subscribers&utm_campaign=99e81d93ff-22112012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_861a00f27d-99e81d93ff-266237433

I'm on a phone and can't paste the content

He had another interesting read last week, that we could borrow for 30 years at 0.7-0.8%. It was interesting, how he could claim we could borrow so cheaply for so long, when the bond market was saying it was about 0.9 % for ten years.

There was an interesting article last week on the disconnect between people understanding who these companies were and where the money is going. If you hold a private pension. Chances are you will be benefiting from these NAMA sales.

If you want to, you can buy shares in Kennedy Wilson and Starwood Property Trust and benefit from these property sales. You buy shares in these companies and benefit from these sales directly.

Villa05

newacc2015 wrote:

There was an interesting article last week on the disconnect between people understanding who these companies were and where the money is going. If you hold a private pension. Chances are you will be benefiting from these NAMA sales.

If the state purchased alot more of them, there would be a huge saving on what is currently being paid to house people on the housing list. There could even be scope for profit out of the transaction

borderlinemeath

Villa05 wrote: »

If the state purchased alot more of them, there would be a huge saving on what is currently being paid to house people on the housing list. There could even be scope for profit out of the transaction

The state don't want to be landlords. It's far more profitable and far less hassle to have the private sector do it for you. As discussed on Matt Cooper last week, 30% of their existing council tenants are in long term rent arrears. The token amount that they are expected to pay to be housed, they are not even paying this, without penalty or liability and NOTHING is done about it.

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

The government is happy to take 60% of the rent from private landlords in tax and let them take the abuse from the public when they are not happy. The government has done nothing to help LL s with issues just added more for public opinion.

Big time- it suits the government to abdicate their responsibility to house those incapable of housing themselves- to the private sector. That they are managing to do so in such a cost effective manner is just the icing on the cake.

There was a conscious decision made to divest of housing stock- and to allow tenants purchase local authority property at significant discounts.

This was simply mirroring similar schemes to those in the UK- however- and notably- in the UK they have recognised the futility of these schemes- and wholly cancelled them- as it was nonsensical getting rid of the stock of council properties- without replacing them to cater for the next generation of those incapable of housing themselves.

Scotland issued a few stark reports on this in the run up to the last election- and were first out of the traps in cancelling these schemes.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Big time- it suits the government to abdicate their responsibility to house those incapable of housing themselves- to the private sector. That they are managing to do so in such a cost effective manner is just the icing on the cake.

There was a conscious decision made to divest of housing stock- and to allow tenants purchase local authority property at significant discounts.

This was simply mirroring similar schemes to those in the UK- however- and notably- in the UK they have recognised the futility of these schemes- and wholly cancelled them- as it was nonsensical getting rid of the stock of council properties- without replacing them to cater for the next generation of those incapable of housing themselves.

Scotland issued a few stark reports on this in the run up to the last election- and were first out of the traps in cancelling these schemes.

Contrary to cancelling the sell off of council homes, the U.K. Government has legislated to provide the right to buy to housing association tenants also thereby creating a whole new race to the bottom.